Biglaw Litigation Culture Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all:

I've heard a lot about biglaw transactional culture, but it also seems like even where a transactional department is rough, that same firm's litigation department can be great. So bad reviews of a transactional department won't necessarily carry over to litigation.

If you were a litigator who could work basically anywhere in BigLaw (for the sake of argument), and you were first and foremost interested in culture/work-life balance/etc., where would you go?

I'm particularly interested in firms with Chicago locations, but open to hearing about anything. And by "culture," I'm being intentionally vague: I'd be into everything from low facetime requirements, relaxed dress code, cool perks, nice co-workers, partners who leave you alone on weekends, and so on.

If it helps, I do critical motions/appeals without any particular specialty, and I wouldn't mind keeping it that way.

Thanks!

[Sackboy]

I'm a transactional attorney, so I could be wrong here. But, when I hear about awful "culture" in transactional groups it's because people are working 24/7 in what can often feel like a very soulless job. When I hear about awful "culture" in litigation groups it tends to be because the partners are actually batshit assholes high on the prestige of their pedigree and how smart they are or its surrounding the absolutely abysmal chances of making equity partner in most litigation groups.

[Anonymous User]

Perhaps only at my firm but morale has been especially bad among litigation associates in the past year because 1) transactional folks have been getting these special bonuses while litigation folks have not; and 2) there are not many in-house options for litigation folks so really can’t even afford to leave…

[Anonymous User]

I'm particularly interested in firms with Chicago locations, but open to hearing about anything. And by "culture," I'm being intentionally vague: I'd be into everything from low facetime requirements, relaxed dress code, cool perks, nice co-workers, partners who leave you alone on weekends, and so on.

Litigation midlevel here at a firm not known for being lifestyle friendly. It's funny that you bring up facetime/dress code because my understanding is Quinn is pretty lax on both and is also an insane place to work.

Unfortunately it's much more about the "who" than the "where." At any biglaw firm, you can get on case teams run by masochist partners. At my firm, there are big-time partners who insist upon Sunday morning team calls for an hour, because that's when their family is getting ready for church and so they want to make use of it. There are partners who will send comments on drafts etc. at 10 or 11 PM and then will email the client at 8 AM that they'll get whatever material that morning (i.e. you are going to do it right now or else burn the partner to the client, which is very bad for you). There are partners who disappear from case management entirely and leave senior associates alone to run the show until they swoop in and declare that the strategy is a big mistake and weeks or even months of work need to be redone in a matter of days.

But there are also partners who are reasonable: they have high expectations for work quality and how many hours you'll put in, but they won't give arbitrary deadlines, they'll be there to support you when you need it and they'll give you space to do your job, they'll preview big moments coming down the pipe, and they are just all around solid to work for.

I expect there are some from each bucket at every firm. It really will depend heavily on which cases you get on. And generally speaking, the laterals get the bad cases when they first start, because the current associates are doing what they can to take the good work with the good partners.

As far as firm-specific stuff, since you mentioned Chicago I am aware that the Kirkland lit team in that office has been getting destroyed for over a year and has suffered large defections accordingly (they are also hiring a lot of laterals, apparently). If lifestyle is important to you in Chicago then I think you just drop Quinn and Kirkland and you start asking people who actually work at places like Sidley or Jenner what their experience has been like.

[Joachim2017]

I'm a transactional attorney, so I could be wrong here. But, when I hear about awful "culture" in transactional groups it's because people are working 24/7 in what can often feel like a very soulless job. When I hear about awful "culture" in litigation groups it tends to be because the partners are actually batshit assholes high on the prestige of their pedigree and how smart they are or its surrounding the absolutely abysmal chances of making equity partner in most litigation groups.

This is too over-simplified in that plenty of transactional groups have "awful" culture in the way described above for litigation groups: asshole partners with ego complexes who have delusional thoughts that they are business people just like their big-name clients, rather than servicemen for those clients. There are assholes in both types of groups, it's just what they are "high" on that's sometimes different (pedigree v. rubbing shoulders with fancy clients, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

I'm particularly interested in firms with Chicago locations, but open to hearing about anything. And by "culture," I'm being intentionally vague: I'd be into everything from low facetime requirements, relaxed dress code, cool perks, nice co-workers, partners who leave you alone on weekends, and so on.

Litigation midlevel here at a firm not known for being lifestyle friendly. It's funny that you bring up facetime/dress code because my understanding is Quinn is pretty lax on both and is also an insane place to work.

Unfortunately it's much more about the "who" than the "where." At any biglaw firm, you can get on case teams run by masochist partners. At my firm, there are big-time partners who insist upon Sunday morning team calls for an hour, because that's when their family is getting ready for church and so they want to make use of it. There are partners who will send comments on drafts etc. at 10 or 11 PM and then will email the client at 8 AM that they'll get whatever material that morning (i.e. you are going to do it right now or else burn the partner to the client, which is very bad for you). There are partners who disappear from case management entirely and leave senior associates alone to run the show until they swoop in and declare that the strategy is a big mistake and weeks or even months of work need to be redone in a matter of days.

But there are also partners who are reasonable: they have high expectations for work quality and how many hours you'll put in, but they won't give arbitrary deadlines, they'll be there to support you when you need it and they'll give you space to do your job, they'll preview big moments coming down the pipe, and they are just all around solid to work for.

I expect there are some from each bucket at every firm. It really will depend heavily on which cases you get on. And generally speaking, the laterals get the bad cases when they first start, because the current associates are doing what they can to take the good work with the good partners.

As far as firm-specific stuff, since you mentioned Chicago I am aware that the Kirkland lit team in that office has been getting destroyed for over a year and has suffered large defections accordingly (they are also hiring a lot of laterals, apparently). If lifestyle is important to you in Chicago then I think you just drop Quinn and Kirkland and you start asking people who actually work at places like Sidley or Jenner what their experience has been like.

Thanks! That's very helpful. Re: lifestyle, I've heard good things about Sidley, Jenner, and Mayer. I've also heard good things about Latham, but I am still bitter about the recession layoffs, and so I'd rather avoid them.

[Anonymous User]

I'm particularly interested in firms with Chicago locations, but open to hearing about anything. And by "culture," I'm being intentionally vague: I'd be into everything from low facetime requirements, relaxed dress code, cool perks, nice co-workers, partners who leave you alone on weekends, and so on.

Litigation midlevel here at a firm not known for being lifestyle friendly. It's funny that you bring up facetime/dress code because my understanding is Quinn is pretty lax on both and is also an insane place to work.

Unfortunately it's much more about the "who" than the "where." At any biglaw firm, you can get on case teams run by masochist partners. At my firm, there are big-time partners who insist upon Sunday morning team calls for an hour, because that's when their family is getting ready for church and so they want to make use of it. There are partners who will send comments on drafts etc. at 10 or 11 PM and then will email the client at 8 AM that they'll get whatever material that morning (i.e. you are going to do it right now or else burn the partner to the client, which is very bad for you). There are partners who disappear from case management entirely and leave senior associates alone to run the show until they swoop in and declare that the strategy is a big mistake and weeks or even months of work need to be redone in a matter of days.

But there are also partners who are reasonable: they have high expectations for work quality and how many hours you'll put in, but they won't give arbitrary deadlines, they'll be there to support you when you need it and they'll give you space to do your job, they'll preview big moments coming down the pipe, and they are just all around solid to work for.

I expect there are some from each bucket at every firm. It really will depend heavily on which cases you get on. And generally speaking, the laterals get the bad cases when they first start, because the current associates are doing what they can to take the good work with the good partners.

As far as firm-specific stuff, since you mentioned Chicago I am aware that the Kirkland lit team in that office has been getting destroyed for over a year and has suffered large defections accordingly (they are also hiring a lot of laterals, apparently). If lifestyle is important to you in Chicago then I think you just drop Quinn and Kirkland and you start asking people who actually work at places like Sidley or Jenner what their experience has been like.

Thanks! That's very helpful. Re: lifestyle, I've heard good things about Sidley, Jenner, and Mayer. I've also heard good things about Latham, but I am still bitter about the recession layoffs, and so I'd rather avoid them.

If lifestyle is the goal, absolutely don't go to KE. They've been really trying with the perks, like all sorts of free food, etc., and there's the new building soonish, but none of that changes the reality that they're massively busy.

On the other hand, for a certain person, a group being busy is a good thing.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a transactional attorney, so I could be wrong here. But, when I hear about awful "culture" in transactional groups it's because people are working 24/7 in what can often feel like a very soulless job. When I hear about awful "culture" in litigation groups it tends to be because the partners are actually batshit assholes high on the prestige of their pedigree and how smart they are or its surrounding the absolutely abysmal chances of making equity partner in most litigation groups.

This is too over-simplified in that plenty of transactional groups have "awful" culture in the way described above for litigation groups: asshole partners with ego complexes who have delusional thoughts that they are business people just like their big-name clients, rather than servicemen for those clients. There are assholes in both types of groups, it's just what they are "high" on that's sometimes different (pedigree v. rubbing shoulders with fancy clients, etc.).

I love the lit vs corp fighting over who’s more important. I think neither is that important. But agree that there are assholes in both.

[Joachim2017]

I don't think anyone is arguing over who is more important (which would be meaningless without a reference point anyway). The only point is that there are assholes on both sides, it's just that the reasons they are assholes are different.

[Anonymous User]

I'm particularly interested in firms with Chicago locations, but open to hearing about anything. And by "culture," I'm being intentionally vague: I'd be into everything from low facetime requirements, relaxed dress code, cool perks, nice co-workers, partners who leave you alone on weekends, and so on.

Litigation midlevel here at a firm not known for being lifestyle friendly. It's funny that you bring up facetime/dress code because my understanding is Quinn is pretty lax on both and is also an insane place to work.

Unfortunately it's much more about the "who" than the "where." At any biglaw firm, you can get on case teams run by masochist partners. At my firm, there are big-time partners who insist upon Sunday morning team calls for an hour, because that's when their family is getting ready for church and so they want to make use of it. There are partners who will send comments on drafts etc. at 10 or 11 PM and then will email the client at 8 AM that they'll get whatever material that morning (i.e. you are going to do it right now or else burn the partner to the client, which is very bad for you). There are partners who disappear from case management entirely and leave senior associates alone to run the show until they swoop in and declare that the strategy is a big mistake and weeks or even months of work need to be redone in a matter of days.

But there are also partners who are reasonable: they have high expectations for work quality and how many hours you'll put in, but they won't give arbitrary deadlines, they'll be there to support you when you need it and they'll give you space to do your job, they'll preview big moments coming down the pipe, and they are just all around solid to work for.

I expect there are some from each bucket at every firm. It really will depend heavily on which cases you get on. And generally speaking, the laterals get the bad cases when they first start, because the current associates are doing what they can to take the good work with the good partners.

As far as firm-specific stuff, since you mentioned Chicago I am aware that the Kirkland lit team in that office has been getting destroyed for over a year and has suffered large defections accordingly (they are also hiring a lot of laterals, apparently). If lifestyle is important to you in Chicago then I think you just drop Quinn and Kirkland and you start asking people who actually work at places like Sidley or Jenner what their experience has been like.

Thanks! That's very helpful. Re: lifestyle, I've heard good things about Sidley, Jenner, and Mayer. I've also heard good things about Latham, but I am still bitter about the recession layoffs, and so I'd rather avoid them.

If lifestyle is the goal, absolutely don't go to KE. They've been really trying with the perks, like all sorts of free food, etc., and there's the new building soonish, but none of that changes the reality that they're massively busy.

On the other hand, for a certain person, a group being busy is a good thing.

Yeah, my goal is to find a role where I can get a large paycheck to do my silly little job and walk home every night with a reasonably large portion of my mental health in my pocket. So unless the group is busy with, say, curing cancer, I'd happily accept a slower pace.

[Robot]

BFKN goes below market but I believe it’s deliberately a “lifestyle” firm. It’s as selective as any firm in Chi not called Bartlit Beck though.

[Anonymous User]

BFKN goes below market but I believe it’s deliberately a “lifestyle” firm. It’s as selective as any firm in Chi not called Bartlit Beck though.

Not OP, but do they hire clerks?

[Anonymous User]

I’m a Latham lit midlevel in NY and I think we are about as good as it gets for big law litigation in terms of culture/wlb. Chicago is even better, but at LW we really do work on cross office teams. I have plenty of matters out of DC, SF, and CH in addition to my NY work.

Don’t let the recession stuff deter you. Business is booming at LW in all practice areas and I think we are extremely well positioned in the event of another down turn.

[Anonymous User]

BFKN goes below market but I believe it’s deliberately a “lifestyle” firm. It’s as selective as any firm in Chi not called Bartlit Beck though.

Not OP, but do they hire clerks?

I work at BFKN and yes, but also openings are fairly rare (though there have been a fair number for corporate/RE recently). You could very well clerk and there not be an opening at that time when you finish. The firm model is 2-3 partners to 1 associate, and people stick around for a long time, because the hours are reasonable, the pay is close enough to market, the clients are mostly of biglaw level sophistication, and partnership (both non-equity and equity) are realistic goals.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a 2nd year in V20 lit in NYC. I’ve been consistently busy but have only pulled a handful of late nights (past 10 PM) whereas my friends in transactional routinely work past midnight or pull all nighters. Granted there are still fire drills in lit but many of them you can see coming. Work life balance is necessarily poor because it’s big law but it seems better than the transactional practices, fwiw.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a 2nd year in V20 lit in NYC. I’ve been consistently busy but have only pulled a handful of late nights (past 10 PM) whereas my friends in transactional routinely work past midnight or pull all nighters. Granted there are still fire drills in lit but many of them you can see coming. Work life balance is necessarily poor because it’s big law but it seems better than the transactional practices, fwiw.

The main takeaway that I've gotten from this board overall is that, on average, transactional attorneys have much less control of their time and genuinely dislike their jobs, whereas litigators seem to complain much less and are mostly sad about weaker exit options (though it's not 100% clear to me that that's even right). The corporate folks often tend to make up for this by saying they're more valuable and should be paid more. Given how miserable they all sound, I don't blame them.

[Anon-non-anon]

I’m a 2nd year in V20 lit in NYC. I’ve been consistently busy but have only pulled a handful of late nights (past 10 PM) whereas my friends in transactional routinely work past midnight or pull all nighters. Granted there are still fire drills in lit but many of them you can see coming. Work life balance is necessarily poor because it’s big law but it seems better than the transactional practices, fwiw.

The main takeaway that I've gotten from this board overall is that, on average, transactional attorneys have much less control of their time and genuinely dislike their jobs, whereas litigators seem to complain much less and are mostly sad about weaker exit options (though it's not 100% clear to me that that's even right). The corporate folks often tend to make up for this by saying they're more valuable and should be paid more. Given how miserable they all sound, I don't blame them.

I basically agree with that. I think that people that enjoyed law school are more likely to have a better life as a litigator. People that more view it as a means to an end are more likely to be drawn towards transactional, as you can do a few years at a firm then easily go in house.

In house is definitely harder for litigators, though not impossible. Generally, the company needs to be large to require in-house litigators (meaning they have lots of litigations going), while issues that a corporate generalist could mostly handle come up all the time.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a 2nd year in V20 lit in NYC. I’ve been consistently busy but have only pulled a handful of late nights (past 10 PM) whereas my friends in transactional routinely work past midnight or pull all nighters. Granted there are still fire drills in lit but many of them you can see coming. Work life balance is necessarily poor because it’s big law but it seems better than the transactional practices, fwiw.

The main takeaway that I've gotten from this board overall is that, on average, transactional attorneys have much less control of their time and genuinely dislike their jobs, whereas litigators seem to complain much less and are mostly sad about weaker exit options (though it's not 100% clear to me that that's even right). The corporate folks often tend to make up for this by saying they're more valuable and should be paid more. Given how miserable they all sound, I don't blame them.

V20 lit second year from above. In addition to why the person above said re exit options, my limited understanding of why lit exit options are considered bad compared to transactional is that it seems impossible to find a job where you’re doing similar kind of work but at a more humane pace. Coming from securities lit your options for continuing in the field in a private capacity seem to be plaintiffs firm or other defense firm neither of which solve the big law hours problem. Then there’s government and lots of other places you can go where you’re not doing exactly the same work. But yeah I think the problem is finding comparable work for better hours.

[gregfootball2001]

I’m a 2nd year in V20 lit in NYC. I’ve been consistently busy but have only pulled a handful of late nights (past 10 PM) whereas my friends in transactional routinely work past midnight or pull all nighters. Granted there are still fire drills in lit but many of them you can see coming. Work life balance is necessarily poor because it’s big law but it seems better than the transactional practices, fwiw.

The main takeaway that I've gotten from this board overall is that, on average, transactional attorneys have much less control of their time and genuinely dislike their jobs, whereas litigators seem to complain much less and are mostly sad about weaker exit options (though it's not 100% clear to me that that's even right). The corporate folks often tend to make up for this by saying they're more valuable and should be paid more. Given how miserable they all sound, I don't blame them.

For another anecdotal point, I started in midlaw lit, moved to biglaw transactional (in a somewhat niche practice), and am much happier where I am. It's very rare that I work past 10, I've done two all-nighters in three+ years, and it's interesting work. So, like everything else, it can be very firm and group dependent.

[Anonymous User]

There are great lit exits lifestyle-wise in smaller markets but you have to be willing to move, and ideally you shouldn’t be a securities litigator or some other sort of litigator that focuses on stuff unique to public companies for secondary/tertiary exits

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, OP here. I have been clerking for a few years after LS and the longer I clerk and read the horror stories on this forum and others, the less I want to actually enter practice. I'm not afraid of working hard (I wouldn't have done as well as I did in LS and my clerkships if so) but I am certainly afraid of having no life. But it's becoming increasingly apparent as of late that the horror stories are primarily from transactional attorneys, whereas litigation is stressful, but usually only about as stressful as any good, well-paid, reasonably intellectually fulfilling job should be. So thanks, everyone.

[Anonymous User]

I intentionally left securities lit after specializing in it early specifically because the exit options seemed terrible. The end goal was either going to be govt for life or partner in some size firm, neither of which seemed appealing.

Hoping that retooling into more of a white collar focus with some other general lit experience opens up some more doors - though who knows for what.

Long way of saying, yea lit exit options are 100% rougher.

[Anonymous User]

I intentionally left securities lit after specializing in it early specifically because the exit options seemed terrible. The end goal was either going to be govt for life or partner in some size firm, neither of which seemed appealing.

Hoping that retooling into more of a white collar focus with some other general lit experience opens up some more doors - though who knows for what.

Long way of saying, yea lit exit options are 100% rougher.

If you could start over, would you have gone into transactional? If not, what litigation would you have done to optimize your exit options?

[Anon-non-anon]

I intentionally left securities lit after specializing in it early specifically because the exit options seemed terrible. The end goal was either going to be govt for life or partner in some size firm, neither of which seemed appealing.

Hoping that retooling into more of a white collar focus with some other general lit experience opens up some more doors - though who knows for what.

Long way of saying, yea lit exit options are 100% rougher.

If you could start over, would you have gone into transactional? If not, what litigation would you have done to optimize your exit options?

Not the above but employment and cyber/privacy are two lit-adjacent areas that there's a lot of in-house demand for.

[Anonymous User]

I’m a 2nd year in V20 lit in NYC. I’ve been consistently busy but have only pulled a handful of late nights (past 10 PM) whereas my friends in transactional routinely work past midnight or pull all nighters. Granted there are still fire drills in lit but many of them you can see coming. Work life balance is necessarily poor because it’s big law but it seems better than the transactional practices, fwiw.

The main takeaway that I've gotten from this board overall is that, on average, transactional attorneys have much less control of their time and genuinely dislike their jobs, whereas litigators seem to complain much less and are mostly sad about weaker exit options (though it's not 100% clear to me that that's even right). The corporate folks often tend to make up for this by saying they're more valuable and should be paid more. Given how miserable they all sound, I don't blame them.

As a happy litigator, I'll admit that the exit options are not great... if you like litigation. Generally, unless you go to government, a smaller firm, or solo (only the first of which is really an "exit" option), you can get a new job, but you won't be a litigator anymore. Even if you are supervising litigations, which does sound wonderful some days, you are not the one actually in court or taking the deposition.

If you just want a new job though, there are plenty of good adjacent options unless you hyper specialize.