Senior lit associate unsure of next step Forum

[LBJ's Hair]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

you're looking at a law firm like it's a law school - where you get an A for being a good student, b/c that's "fair" - rather than a business - where you make partner b/c you make the firm money.

if you're not making the firm money (directly, by having clients, or indirectly, by servicing someone else's), you're not gonna get paid a million dollars a year (or 2 or 3 or whatever) no matter how smart and good at your job you are

litigation, for most firms, makes a lot less money than corporate. (b/c the $ amounts at stake are typically lower, b/c it's usually a cost, not a revenue generator for the decisionmakers, etc).

is that "fair"? I dunno. doesn't matter. it's a business. the business case you need to make to get (equity?) partner at high-PPP firms is a harder one, b/c it's harder to make the firm a lot of money

[tlsguy2020]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

To oversimplify:

Corporate deals make clients richer. As such, clients are willing to pay more for corporate lawyers.

Lawsuits make clients poorer. As such, clients already feel vulnerable, and will be careful about how much they pay their litigators.

[Anonymous User]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

Because you haven't been at a biglaw firm during a recession, when the exact opposite is true.

Well it's looking like I may get to learn this firsthand. Yay.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw litigation partner. Although transactional work is a greater revenue generator than litigation overall, there are many firms throughout the V100 where litigation is the engine of the firm--or at least not the red-headed stepchild of the firm's transactional practices. I would strongly advise you to at least look for a special counsel position at one of those firms. You have very good substantive experience and a good story, and I think a lateral move is perfect for someone (like you) who has gone as far as it seems you are going to go at your firm.

One thing I saw very little of in the OP is business development. Although I don't think you need to have a portable book of business to get a counsel position (or even a position as an income partner), you should be intentional about looking for opportunities to publish, speak on panels, and otherwise market yourself. (You should also try to stay in touch with your contacts at your clients from your current firm, particularly if they move jobs.) Most people on TLS vastly overestimate the extent to which you need a "book of business" to make counsel or income partner, or to stay in those roles, but you absolutely need to show some real business generation ability - or at least initiative - if you want to make equity partner at any firm.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw litigation partner. Although transactional work is a greater revenue generator than litigation overall, there are many firms throughout the V100 where litigation is the engine of the firm--or at least not the red-headed stepchild of the firm's transactional practices. I would strongly advise you to at least look for a special counsel position at one of those firms. You have very good substantive experience and a good story, and I think a lateral move is perfect for someone (like you) who has gone as far as it seems you are going to go at your firm.

One thing I saw very little of in the OP is business development. Although I don't think you need to have a portable book of business to get a counsel position (or even a position as an income partner), you should be intentional about looking for opportunities to publish, speak on panels, and otherwise market yourself. (You should also try to stay in touch with your contacts at your clients from your current firm, particularly if they move jobs.) Most people on TLS vastly overestimate the extent to which you need a "book of business" to make counsel or income partner, or to stay in those roles, but you absolutely need to show some real business generation ability - or at least initiative - if you want to make equity partner at any firm.

OP here. I do publish a bunch in law360 and the like. I typically initiate the ideas for the articles and then approach high-ish powered partners about partnering with me on the article which I write myself. I mean no business has come of it directly, but I know I make the partners very happy!

Could you name some of those firms that have lit as an “engine” and that take lateral seniors with strong experience? I only know of one or two (hence the OP). Also, given that these positions are not going to be posted, is it best to work with a highly regarded recruiting firm?

Lastly, I have a family and a mortgage and I am feeling reticent to leave my good and lucrative thing for the unknown in this climate. In my experience the big commercial lit cases settle early when times get tight for obvious reasons…hence fewer hours to bill. Do you think that’s wise and, similar to the sentiments floated from some others here, I should wait another year or so?

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw litigation partner. Although transactional work is a greater revenue generator than litigation overall, there are many firms throughout the V100 where litigation is the engine of the firm--or at least not the red-headed stepchild of the firm's transactional practices. I would strongly advise you to at least look for a special counsel position at one of those firms. You have very good substantive experience and a good story, and I think a lateral move is perfect for someone (like you) who has gone as far as it seems you are going to go at your firm.

One thing I saw very little of in the OP is business development. Although I don't think you need to have a portable book of business to get a counsel position (or even a position as an income partner), you should be intentional about looking for opportunities to publish, speak on panels, and otherwise market yourself. (You should also try to stay in touch with your contacts at your clients from your current firm, particularly if they move jobs.) Most people on TLS vastly overestimate the extent to which you need a "book of business" to make counsel or income partner, or to stay in those roles, but you absolutely need to show some real business generation ability - or at least initiative - if you want to make equity partner at any firm.

The last part of this is totally false by the way. There are a tremendous number of equity partners who get there by being extremely good at, and dedicated to, their jobs, with zero interest in business development. If you latch on to high value existing clients of the firm, and they give the firm more work because of you, you can absolutely make equity partner in a pure service capacity. Lots of Tax/ERISA equity partners with zero business, and tons of other partners as well.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw litigation partner. Although transactional work is a greater revenue generator than litigation overall, there are many firms throughout the V100 where litigation is the engine of the firm--or at least not the red-headed stepchild of the firm's transactional practices. I would strongly advise you to at least look for a special counsel position at one of those firms. You have very good substantive experience and a good story, and I think a lateral move is perfect for someone (like you) who has gone as far as it seems you are going to go at your firm.

One thing I saw very little of in the OP is business development. Although I don't think you need to have a portable book of business to get a counsel position (or even a position as an income partner), you should be intentional about looking for opportunities to publish, speak on panels, and otherwise market yourself. (You should also try to stay in touch with your contacts at your clients from your current firm, particularly if they move jobs.) Most people on TLS vastly overestimate the extent to which you need a "book of business" to make counsel or income partner, or to stay in those roles, but you absolutely need to show some real business generation ability - or at least initiative - if you want to make equity partner at any firm.

The last part of this is totally false by the way. There are a tremendous number of equity partners who get there by being extremely good at, and dedicated to, their jobs, with zero interest in business development. If you latch on to high value existing clients of the firm, and they give the firm more work because of you, you can absolutely make equity partner in a pure service capacity. Lots of Tax/ERISA equity partners with zero business, and tons of other partners as well.

Didn't the quoted anon say it's not necessary and overestimated? Also the bolded is business generation, so showing "business generation ability" could be doing just that. It's hard to make that your sell, though, when lateraling.

[Anonymous User]

Original OP here.

What about a window? Like assume I’m a 7-8.

At what point would this move to a “counsel” type position elsewhere become more difficult because firms would presume that if I was as good as I say I am, I’d make partner at my current firm? Is that a risk, or will firms fully realize that my experience speaks for itself and that firms like mine simply don’t prioritize hard adversarial commercial lit (business disputes, class action defense, consumer protection action defense, etc.)?

[Anonymous User]

Original op bumping. Been some good stuff on here.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw litigation partner. Although transactional work is a greater revenue generator than litigation overall, there are many firms throughout the V100 where litigation is the engine of the firm--or at least not the red-headed stepchild of the firm's transactional practices. I would strongly advise you to at least look for a special counsel position at one of those firms. You have very good substantive experience and a good story, and I think a lateral move is perfect for someone (like you) who has gone as far as it seems you are going to go at your firm.

One thing I saw very little of in the OP is business development. Although I don't think you need to have a portable book of business to get a counsel position (or even a position as an income partner), you should be intentional about looking for opportunities to publish, speak on panels, and otherwise market yourself. (You should also try to stay in touch with your contacts at your clients from your current firm, particularly if they move jobs.) Most people on TLS vastly overestimate the extent to which you need a "book of business" to make counsel or income partner, or to stay in those roles, but you absolutely need to show some real business generation ability - or at least initiative - if you want to make equity partner at any firm.

The last part of this is totally false by the way. There are a tremendous number of equity partners who get there by being extremely good at, and dedicated to, their jobs, with zero interest in business development. If you latch on to high value existing clients of the firm, and they give the firm more work because of you, you can absolutely make equity partner in a pure service capacity. Lots of Tax/ERISA equity partners with zero business, and tons of other partners as well.

If you don't mind me asking, what other practice groups do you see making equity partner with little to no business?

[Anonymous User]

I am in a similar position to the OP, but with less substantive first chair experience.

Your level of trial, case management, and appellate work are pretty rare for your seniority. Firms will quietly pay a premium in a pinch to find senior associates and non-equity partners that they are confident can run a case. They often do not trust their homegrown associates because they know they have only handled discovery and motion practice for service partners. Substantive experience is often gobbled up by litigation partners (especially service partners) leaving litigation associates to have good billable hours with discovery but not enough experience to take the next step.

I think this puts you in a good position, particularly if a recession comes and litigation ticks up (which history says it will). Firms will be hunting for even more experienced litigators (with the right pedigree) to service these matters. Typically, firms only trust peer firm attorneys and EX-DOJ (occasionally state agencies), because they know they actually try cases and do advanced litigation work.

I say all this to say, that I think you are in a great spot. I don't think you should be too pressed for a move because even if you wait a couple of years, as others have suggested, it makes it more likely to lateral into a firm as counsel, or even non equity partner, due to your seniority/experience.

One factor I do not think you should underestimate is that you LIKE YOUR JOB. That is key (and rare lol). Lateraling as a senior associate (especially in litigation) can be very difficult, not because of the substantive work, but because of the new workflow, culture adjustment, and being nobody's go-to person.

I would wait a year or two. Leverage and attrition can change firm dynamics quickly more in your favor. In addition to publishing, you should up your networking. It can be casual, but people at the firms you may target and industry must know who you are. Stay in touch with peer and more senior co-counsel, opposing counsel etc. on linkedin, in person etc. Grow these relationships and begin to have initial conversations with boutiques, individuals at other firms, players in the market about your interest- not pushing for a job, but being open to new opportunities.

[nbvb]

Biglaw litigation partner. Although transactional work is a greater revenue generator than litigation overall, there are many firms throughout the V100 where litigation is the engine of the firm--or at least not the red-headed stepchild of the firm's transactional practices. I would strongly advise you to at least look for a special counsel position at one of those firms. You have very good substantive experience and a good story, and I think a lateral move is perfect for someone (like you) who has gone as far as it seems you are going to go at your firm.

One thing I saw very little of in the OP is business development. Although I don't think you need to have a portable book of business to get a counsel position (or even a position as an income partner), you should be intentional about looking for opportunities to publish, speak on panels, and otherwise market yourself. (You should also try to stay in touch with your contacts at your clients from your current firm, particularly if they move jobs.) Most people on TLS vastly overestimate the extent to which you need a "book of business" to make counsel or income partner, or to stay in those roles, but you absolutely need to show some real business generation ability - or at least initiative - if you want to make equity partner at any firm.

The last part of this is totally false by the way. There are a tremendous number of equity partners who get there by being extremely good at, and dedicated to, their jobs, with zero interest in business development. If you latch on to high value existing clients of the firm, and they give the firm more work because of you, you can absolutely make equity partner in a pure service capacity. Lots of Tax/ERISA equity partners with zero business, and tons of other partners as well.

I don't disagree with the bolded, but want to add a little bit of nuance. Specialty groups (Tax/ERISA/etc.) are areas where firms know they need the expertise and are willing to make partners to ensure that expertise is available. They also tend to bill out at higher amounts. This makes it a bit of an anomaly compared with M&A, lit and more generalist practice areas. Firms pay to have these speciality groups availble so they can take on larger matters and are less likely to scale down speciality groups because they know they have to have them on hand.

This is much much harder for partners in more general practice areas. The key here is not simply doing a good job in a pure service capacity but getting origination/working (whatever model your firm uses) credit for your work on high-value existing clients of the firm. This can be very hard because partners that predate your work with the clients often won't want to give up enough % credit to make your business "generation" valuable enough for partnership. Mentors, senior partners, growth-minded partners etc. are needed to translate your work on preexisting clients into equity partnerships. It can be done but it is a much harder path than a new business generation route where you can take a much larger claim to the revenue credit.

Again, not really in disagreement but wanted to add more complexity. For clarity, I do think that an actual "trial lawyer" is one of these specialty areas. But the person needs to have a track record of trying and winning trials.

[Anonymous User]

I am in a similar position to the OP, but with less substantive first chair experience.

Your level of trial, case management, and appellate work are pretty rare for your seniority. Firms will quietly pay a premium in a pinch to find senior associates and non-equity partners that they are confident can run a case. They often do not trust their homegrown associates because they know they have only handled discovery and motion practice for service partners. Substantive experience is often gobbled up by litigation partners (especially service partners) leaving litigation associates to have good billable hours with discovery but not enough experience to take the next step.

I think this puts you in a good position, particularly if a recession comes and litigation ticks up (which history says it will). Firms will be hunting for even more experienced litigators (with the right pedigree) to service these matters. Typically, firms only trust peer firm attorneys and EX-DOJ (occasionally state agencies), because they know they actually try cases and do advanced litigation work.

I say all this to say, that I think you are in a great spot. I don't think you should be too pressed for a move because even if you wait a couple of years, as others have suggested, it makes it more likely to lateral into a firm as counsel, or even non equity partner, due to your seniority/experience.

One factor I do not think you should underestimate is that you LIKE YOUR JOB. That is key (and rare lol). Lateraling as a senior associate (especially in litigation) can be very difficult, not because of the substantive work, but because of the new workflow, culture adjustment, and being nobody's go-to person.

I would wait a year or two. Leverage and attrition can change firm dynamics quickly more in your favor. In addition to publishing, you should up your networking. It can be casual, but people at the firms you may target and industry must know who you are. Stay in touch with peer and more senior co-counsel, opposing counsel etc. on linkedin, in person etc. Grow these relationships and begin to have initial conversations with boutiques, individuals at other firms, players in the market about your interest- not pushing for a job, but being open to new opportunities.

Anon OP here. It is very comforting to hear a lot of this. I mean I’d love to stay at my firm and see how things shake out for another 1-2 years. However, my biggest concern is being senior to the point that there are massive “well why isn’t he just gonna make partner at his current firm; what’s going on here?” But it sounds like you don’t think that’s a big risk…?

Another concern is being first in first out. Would that issue apply to a recent of counsel hire as well?

I’m pretty convinced at this point that I wouldn’t lateral up or down to another senior associate position. Between evals and hours I consistently make above market and, as I mentioned, I generally like my job. Plus I have cultivated strong relationships and have some wins under my belt. The thought of starting all over is daunting and “oh there are great partnership prospects here” is just so hard to trust.

[Anonymous User]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

To oversimplify:

Corporate deals make clients richer. As such, clients are willing to pay more for corporate lawyers.

Lawsuits make clients poorer. As such, clients already feel vulnerable, and will be careful about how much they pay their litigators.

Not always the case - true "bet the company" litigation often comes with a blank check, but that term is overused and there simply are not enough of those cases to go around. It's interesting to be at a firm that does get those cases and have them as part of a docket - the client pressures about billing and work product expectations can really vary dramatically from case to case.

[tlsguy2020]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

To oversimplify:

Corporate deals make clients richer. As such, clients are willing to pay more for corporate lawyers.

Lawsuits make clients poorer. As such, clients already feel vulnerable, and will be careful about how much they pay their litigators.

Not always the case - true "bet the company" litigation often comes with a blank check, but that term is overused and there simply are not enough of those cases to go around. It's interesting to be at a firm that does get those cases and have them as part of a docket - the client pressures about billing and work product expectations can really vary dramatically from case to case.

That’s a fair point. I can imagine one of the big tech giants sparing no expense on an existential antitrust case. Could imagine similar for certain products liability cases involving opioids, tobacco, lead etc.

[objctnyrhnr]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

To oversimplify:

Corporate deals make clients richer. As such, clients are willing to pay more for corporate lawyers.

Lawsuits make clients poorer. As such, clients already feel vulnerable, and will be careful about how much they pay their litigators.

Not always the case - true "bet the company" litigation often comes with a blank check, but that term is overused and there simply are not enough of those cases to go around. It's interesting to be at a firm that does get those cases and have them as part of a docket - the client pressures about billing and work product expectations can really vary dramatically from case to case.

When you think about a list of 10 amlaw100 firms that do “bet the company” lit regularly, who comes to mind? Quinn? Boies? Who else?

[tlsguy2020]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

To oversimplify:

Corporate deals make clients richer. As such, clients are willing to pay more for corporate lawyers.

Lawsuits make clients poorer. As such, clients already feel vulnerable, and will be careful about how much they pay their litigators.

Not always the case - true "bet the company" litigation often comes with a blank check, but that term is overused and there simply are not enough of those cases to go around. It's interesting to be at a firm that does get those cases and have them as part of a docket - the client pressures about billing and work product expectations can really vary dramatically from case to case.

When you think about a list of 10 amlaw100 firms that do “bet the company” lit regularly, who comes to mind? Quinn? Boies? Who else?

Apple V. Epic had GDC and Cravath. I think J&J had OMM on the opioid cases.

[Joachim2017]

Excuse the law student ignorance, but why does it seem like excellence in litigation is rewarded less frequently than mediocrity in corporate?

To oversimplify:

Corporate deals make clients richer. As such, clients are willing to pay more for corporate lawyers.

Lawsuits make clients poorer. As such, clients already feel vulnerable, and will be careful about how much they pay their litigators.

Not always the case - true "bet the company" litigation often comes with a blank check, but that term is overused and there simply are not enough of those cases to go around. It's interesting to be at a firm that does get those cases and have them as part of a docket - the client pressures about billing and work product expectations can really vary dramatically from case to case.

When you think about a list of 10 amlaw100 firms that do “bet the company” lit regularly, who comes to mind? Quinn? Boies? Who else?

Apple V. Epic had GDC and Cravath. I think J&J had OMM on the opioid cases.

Boies maybe 10-15 years ago, not anymore. Now it's Susman, GDC, KH, Quinn, etc. Based on institutional / repeat relationships, you'll likely see Cravath and Kirkland come up in some true bet-the-company litigations as well.