Does big law litigation develop actual litigation skills? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’m a 3rd year in a V20 securities lit group.

I’m starting to worry that I’m not developing litigation skills compared to what I would be getting if I were at a smaller firm.

By this point I’ve written parts of briefs, obviously done a ton of legal research and memos, wrote deposition and trial witness outlines. Probably a third of my time has been spent on doc review and related work. Then there is other shit that is essentially paralegal work that the firm wants associates to do.

My main concern is that the size and hierarchy of my group prevents you from learning how to holistically manage a case as an associate. Especially as a junior you tend to get siloed into your little work stream and pretty much just focus on that.

At mid-level, my impression is that you start to take a strategic / manager role over the case and handle client comms and back and forth with opposing counsel, BUT- partners do all of the actual depositions and court arguments themselves. I have literally seen partners steal depositions out from under counsel. This concerns me when I think of people at smaller or boutique lit groups who are already running cases / arguing in court / taking deps.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this? Anyone agree or disagree? Have you left big law lit to a different kind of lit shop? How was the transition? Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

No

[Wild Card]

that doesn't sound too bad, what you've done so far

[Lacepiece23]

I did biglaw for five years and now have been on my own doing plaintiffs employment against biglaw for 2 years.

I think you’re on track. You’re not going to generally be a great litigator if you stay in biglaw. The older partners tend to be good because they were trained back in the day when associates got to do things and/or they have a lot of talent.

No one is ever really going to teach you how to try a case or take a dep. You either learn with trial by fire or you don’t. I go up against a ton of partners who suck. Some are very good and I take things away. I’ve gone up against some associates that are better than partners.

Biglaw shines in that it produces typo free briefs. That’s about it.

[Anonymous User]

I am a partner at a firm in the lower half of the V100 and I got tons of substantive experience as an associate - I wrote my first MTD as a second year, argued in court and took depositions in billable cases as a third year, etc. These were not bet-the-company cases, but that is sort of the point. Our rates, while high, are such that we can take on some smaller cases (those with 7 figures or even high 6 figures at stake) and staff them leanly. That's not true at a V10 or V20 that charges 1500+ an hour for partner time and 1000+ an hour for associate time. At that price point, it really only makes sense to hire those firms for extremely high-value or large cases where you need a ton of manpower - such as the securities cases it sounds like you are stuck litigating.

[Anonymous User]

Does it matter if you don’t get substantive litigation skills if the goal is ultimately AUSA? I feel like most AUSAs on the same path as me (clerkship -> BL -> AUSA) don’t get “substantive” skills in private practice. Am I missing something by just trying to leave after a few years BigLaw?

[Anonymous User]

Does it matter if you don’t get substantive litigation skills if the goal is ultimately AUSA? I feel like most AUSAs on the same path as me (clerkship -> BL -> AUSA) don’t get “substantive” skills in private practice. Am I missing something by just trying to leave after a few years BigLaw?

Conventional wisdom is that if you're on that path you should be in a white collar group working for partners who are former AUSAs, or at a white collar boutique, not doing generic biglaw civil lit. If you want substantive skills in private criminal practice you're better-off at a boutique that does individual representation than at a biglaw firm that does mostly investigations.

[Anonymous User]

I did biglaw for five years and now have been on my own doing plaintiffs employment against biglaw for 2 years.

I think you’re on track. You’re not going to generally be a great litigator if you stay in biglaw. The older partners tend to be good because they were trained back in the day when associates got to do things and/or they have a lot of talent.

No one is ever really going to teach you how to try a case or take a dep. You either learn with trial by fire or you don’t. I go up against a ton of partners who suck. Some are very good and I take things away. I’ve gone up against some associates that are better than partners.

Biglaw shines in that it produces typo free briefs. That’s about it.

Thanks for sharing. How was your transition to plaintiff side? Did you find you had to develop litigation skills you didn’t develop in big law? Anything you would have done differently in hindsight?

[Anonymous User]

I am a partner at a firm in the lower half of the V100 and I got tons of substantive experience as an associate - I wrote my first MTD as a second year, argued in court and took depositions in billable cases as a third year, etc. These were not bet-the-company cases, but that is sort of the point. Our rates, while high, are such that we can take on some smaller cases (those with 7 figures or even high 6 figures at stake) and staff them leanly. That's not true at a V10 or V20 that charges 1500+ an hour for partner time and 1000+ an hour for associate time. At that price point, it really only makes sense to hire those firms for extremely high-value or large cases where you need a ton of manpower - such as the securities cases it sounds like you are stuck litigating.

I work at a mid-sized firm that draws a lot of t-14/big law talent. My experience is basically the same thing as what you’ve posted right here. I will also add that most of my cases are one partner, one associate, so as the associate I do everything. Draft the briefs, talk to the witnesses, take the depositions, etc. That approach allows an associate to learn how to think strategically about the entire arc of a case. I’m just not sure how you’ll ever get there being like the fifth person down on the totem pole on a $5 billion case.

We sometimes get laterals from the giant firms. The #1 constructive criticism they get in reviews is they think too “task oriented” and not “strategically oriented.” The laterals have told me that they feel the criticism is justified, but expected given the way giant firms staff things.

This isn’t a critique of giant firms, either. It’s just reality. The $20 million breach of contract case we handle can be treated a lot differently than a $10 billion securities fraud case. For what it’s worth, though, one of our laterals said that the giant firm’s work product was “10% better at 200% of the cost.” I think it’s undisputed that giant firms have a hard time recognizing that, while the 14th pass of the brief might make it some minimal amount better, it isn’t a value-add to the client.

[Anonymous User]

Does it matter if you don’t get substantive litigation skills if the goal is ultimately AUSA? I feel like most AUSAs on the same path as me (clerkship -> BL -> AUSA) don’t get “substantive” skills in private practice. Am I missing something by just trying to leave after a few years BigLaw?

Conventional wisdom is that if you're on that path you should be in a white collar group working for partners who are former AUSAs, or at a white collar boutique, not doing generic biglaw civil lit. If you want substantive skills in private criminal practice you're better-off at a boutique that does individual representation than at a biglaw firm that does mostly investigations.

I see that most people in certain offices become AUSAs from general lit, not white collar/boutiques.

[Lacepiece23]

I did biglaw for five years and now have been on my own doing plaintiffs employment against biglaw for 2 years.

I think you’re on track. You’re not going to generally be a great litigator if you stay in biglaw. The older partners tend to be good because they were trained back in the day when associates got to do things and/or they have a lot of talent.

No one is ever really going to teach you how to try a case or take a dep. You either learn with trial by fire or you don’t. I go up against a ton of partners who suck. Some are very good and I take things away. I’ve gone up against some associates that are better than partners.

Biglaw shines in that it produces typo free briefs. That’s about it.

Thanks for sharing. How was your transition to plaintiff side? Did you find you had to develop litigation skills you didn’t develop in big law? Anything you would have done differently in hindsight?

I just read lots of books, especially on negotiations. I was lucky to get deps in biglaw, only got them because I chose to do products defense on mdls. I was ironically pretty behind in strategy for written discovery. Didn’t realize how much of the game is the defense hiding relevant documents and the plaintiff trying to figure out how to get them or whether it’s even worth it.

But as you start deadline with biglaw partners, you notice that they become pretty predictable. And you notice that they have some large gaps in their knowledge because of the lack of training on substantive biglaw skills.

[Anonymous User]

I did biglaw for five years and now have been on my own doing plaintiffs employment against biglaw for 2 years.

I think you’re on track. You’re not going to generally be a great litigator if you stay in biglaw. The older partners tend to be good because they were trained back in the day when associates got to do things and/or they have a lot of talent.

No one is ever really going to teach you how to try a case or take a dep. You either learn with trial by fire or you don’t. I go up against a ton of partners who suck. Some are very good and I take things away. I’ve gone up against some associates that are better than partners.

Biglaw shines in that it produces typo free briefs. That’s about it.

Thanks for sharing. How was your transition to plaintiff side? Did you find you had to develop litigation skills you didn’t develop in big law? Anything you would have done differently in hindsight?

I just read lots of books, especially on negotiations. I was lucky to get deps in biglaw, only got them because I chose to do products defense on mdls. I was ironically pretty behind in strategy for written discovery. Didn’t realize how much of the game is the defense hiding relevant documents and the plaintiff trying to figure out how to get them or whether it’s even worth it.

But as you start deadline with biglaw partners, you notice that they become pretty predictable. And you notice that they have some large gaps in their knowledge because of the lack of training on substantive biglaw skills.

Any books you'd recommend?

[Lacepiece23]

I did biglaw for five years and now have been on my own doing plaintiffs employment against biglaw for 2 years.

I think you’re on track. You’re not going to generally be a great litigator if you stay in biglaw. The older partners tend to be good because they were trained back in the day when associates got to do things and/or they have a lot of talent.

No one is ever really going to teach you how to try a case or take a dep. You either learn with trial by fire or you don’t. I go up against a ton of partners who suck. Some are very good and I take things away. I’ve gone up against some associates that are better than partners.

Biglaw shines in that it produces typo free briefs. That’s about it.

Thanks for sharing. How was your transition to plaintiff side? Did you find you had to develop litigation skills you didn’t develop in big law? Anything you would have done differently in hindsight?

I just read lots of books, especially on negotiations. I was lucky to get deps in biglaw, only got them because I chose to do products defense on mdls. I was ironically pretty behind in strategy for written discovery. Didn’t realize how much of the game is the defense hiding relevant documents and the plaintiff trying to figure out how to get them or whether it’s even worth it.

But as you start deadline with biglaw partners, you notice that they become pretty predictable. And you notice that they have some large gaps in their knowledge because of the lack of training on substantive biglaw skills.

Any books you'd recommend?

- Never split the difference (for negotiations)
- Gerry Spence How to win at trial (or something like that)
- Turning points at trial
- 10,000 depositions later dep tips (or something like that)

[Anonymous User]

I’m a 3rd year in a V20 securities lit group.

I’m starting to worry that I’m not developing litigation skills compared to what I would be getting if I were at a smaller firm.

By this point I’ve written parts of briefs, obviously done a ton of legal research and memos, wrote deposition and trial witness outlines. Probably a third of my time has been spent on doc review and related work. Then there is other shit that is essentially paralegal work that the firm wants associates to do.

My main concern is that the size and hierarchy of my group prevents you from learning how to holistically manage a case as an associate. Especially as a junior you tend to get siloed into your little work stream and pretty much just focus on that.

At mid-level, my impression is that you start to take a strategic / manager role over the case and handle client comms and back and forth with opposing counsel, BUT- partners do all of the actual depositions and court arguments themselves. I have literally seen partners steal depositions out from under counsel. This concerns me when I think of people at smaller or boutique lit groups who are already running cases / arguing in court / taking deps.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this? Anyone agree or disagree? Have you left big law lit to a different kind of lit shop? How was the transition? Thanks.

I mean yes that is the point of why so many top students/clerks want to go to smaller selective lit boutiques like Susman or Boies or whatever (in addition to the money). You get actual dep/trial work rather than just ghost-writing for the partners who swoop in last minute to do it.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 5th year who recently left biglaw for a boutique.

At my old firm, most people of my vintage have at least taken a deposition by now (though some only in pro bono cases) but most have not argued in court yet.

At my boutique, I am expected to handle depositions and court arguments other than dispositive motions or a major CEO type of depo.

I wouldn't worry too much as a 3rd year. But if you get to 5th year or beyond and you still don't have that experience, you could get into a situation where a boutique won't hire you because they would need someone of your seniority to run those things right away and you don't have any experience.

Pro bono is a pretty great way to get "firsts" - first deposition, first brief "ownership," first court argument over a portion of an MTD or something. Look into this if you want it. I assume your V20 has a pro bono coordinator or a pro bono partner who should be very receptive about you reaching out to gain skills X, Y, and Z and can connect you with cases that will offer it.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a government trial lawyer (civil) who has beaten numerous biglaw partners in jury trials. Apart from the old and literally grey generation of lawyers out there who are quickly aging out, it is basically impossible to get trial experience as a civil litigator anymore. I was in private practice for over a decade and despite my hard pushes to go to trial, actually got there only a single time on a small pro bono matter.

Lawyers from small firms do seem to be gutsier and much better thinking on their feet, than my biglaw opponents. But don't take that generalization too far, because most small firm lawyers still do also lack trial experience in this generation.

I think where biglaw lawyers are lacking the most is good mentorship from seniors above them. I routinely see these lawyers making arguments in court, either to juries or just to the judges in motions on procedural issues, that completely lack common sense. Someone has not been teaching these lawyers the difference between making an argument that technically might have legal merit in an academic sense, versus making an argument that wins. I had one biglaw attorney with about 10 years of experience seriously argue to a federal judge that a law enforcement witness of mine, who was retired, had been diagnosed with cancer, had an up-coming scary surgery, and barely knew anything relevant about the trial, should be forced to testify in person because my video depo proposal was not good enough. *ucking ridiculous. Of course he lost that motion, like these guys and gals lose all these dumb motions. They lose them all the time. And I see this lack of common sense all the time from prestigious firms who are suddenly in the heat of trial battle.

If you've got golden handcuffs and can't get out of the biglaw lifestyle, I can offer some consolations: biglaw can (if you're in the right area) make you into a Daubert expert. Some of the toughest opponents I've fought on Daubert stuff are biglawyers. Their expertise on this one aspect of litigation is top notch and not to be under-estimated. So, try to cut your teeth on that topic if you can.

Beyond that, you're really not going to be a skilled and effective trial litigator in the current era unless you're a criminal prosecutor, criminal public defender, civil DOJ lawyer, or civil local/county/AG lawyer (and most of the latter unfortunately have a bias against young lawyers). It's tough, and it sucks. I wish the profession would do better.

[Anonymous User]

I think where biglaw lawyers are lacking the most is good mentorship from seniors above them. I routinely see these lawyers making arguments in court, either to juries or just to the judges in motions on procedural issues, that completely lack common sense. Someone has not been teaching these lawyers the difference between making an argument that technically might have legal merit in an academic sense, versus making an argument that wins. I had one biglaw attorney with about 10 years of experience seriously argue to a federal judge that a law enforcement witness of mine, who was retired, had been diagnosed with cancer, had an up-coming scary surgery, and barely knew anything relevant about the trial, should be forced to testify in person because my video depo proposal was not good enough. *ucking ridiculous. Of course he lost that motion, like these guys and gals lose all these dumb motions. They lose them all the time. And I see this lack of common sense all the time from prestigious firms who are suddenly in the heat of trial battle.

Biglaw partner. I try to avoid taking positions like this if humanly possible, but sometimes you just have unreasonable clients who insist on you taking ridiculous positions even when you explain that they are ridiculous positions that will burn credibility with the Court. You can try to talk them out of it, but if push comes to shove, you can't tell them no (except in the rare situations where these positions are literally sanctionable or frivolous) because clients who pay $1000+ an hour do not grow on trees.

[Anonymous User]

I think where biglaw lawyers are lacking the most is good mentorship from seniors above them. I routinely see these lawyers making arguments in court, either to juries or just to the judges in motions on procedural issues, that completely lack common sense. Someone has not been teaching these lawyers the difference between making an argument that technically might have legal merit in an academic sense, versus making an argument that wins. I had one biglaw attorney with about 10 years of experience seriously argue to a federal judge that a law enforcement witness of mine, who was retired, had been diagnosed with cancer, had an up-coming scary surgery, and barely knew anything relevant about the trial, should be forced to testify in person because my video depo proposal was not good enough. *ucking ridiculous. Of course he lost that motion, like these guys and gals lose all these dumb motions. They lose them all the time. And I see this lack of common sense all the time from prestigious firms who are suddenly in the heat of trial battle.

Biglaw partner. I try to avoid taking positions like this if humanly possible, but sometimes you just have unreasonable clients who insist on you taking ridiculous positions even when you explain that they are ridiculous positions that will burn credibility with the Court. You can try to talk them out of it, but if push comes to shove, you can't tell them no (except in the rare situations where these positions are literally sanctionable or frivolous) because clients who pay $1000+ an hour do not grow on trees.

Came here to say this same thing. I've sat there and had clients ask us to make arguments that will obviously hurt our credibility and are destined to lose. Luckily it's happened only a few times but always frustrating.

FWIW, midlevel at a v20 and I fortunately work with a few older partners that let me do literally everything (e.g., argue dispositive motions, MILs, appellate arguments, examine witnesses at trial). But, it is very much the exception among my peers and I've lucked out a bit.

[Anonymous User]

Big law can lead to substantive litigation experience but it is very hit or miss. My experience (8th year in big law NYC) has been mostly misses although some good experience on smaller cases and pro bono matters . I have limited deposition experience even at my seniority and on one case recently we were defending 7 depositions and partner told me I would handle all of them but ended up he took 6 and then I took 1 with him in the room. Another case the partner had me literally write his emails to the client and then would substantially re-write them (eg attached is the Court’s decision saying X). Other cases have been better in terms of taking the lead on drafting motions, communicating with opposing counsel and the client. My experience frankly is that smarter partners are willing to let a senior associate lead, but the micro-manager type of partner is that way with everyone from junior associates all the way to senior associates and junior partners.

[Anonymous User]

Big law can lead to substantive litigation experience but it is very hit or miss. My experience (8th year in big law NYC) has been mostly misses although some good experience on smaller cases and pro bono matters . I have limited deposition experience even at my seniority and on one case recently we were defending 7 depositions and partner told me I would handle all of them but ended up he took 6 and then I took 1 with him in the room. Another case the partner had me literally write his emails to the client and then would substantially re-write them (eg attached is the Court’s decision saying X). Other cases have been better in terms of taking the lead on drafting motions, communicating with opposing counsel and the client. My experience frankly is that smarter partners are willing to let a senior associate lead, but the micro-manager type of partner is that way with everyone from junior associates all the way to senior associates and junior partners.

So here is the issue as I see it - it comes down to resources and slim opportunities in the latter steps of litigation. The client will pay BL partners to do really important tasks, and partners, while they were mid levels did NOT get these opportunities either. It seems that because of this many partners hoard these opportunities because they are also new to them.

Now compare that to DOJ/USAOs/AGs offices. There are finite resources, and unless it’s a truly massive case, very few attorneys staffed on each matter. That means young lawyers are getting their own cases, taking depositions, and arguing in court much earlier.

That’s how the trade off goes. BL gives you much more financial security, but if you want to be a litigator the other jobs listed will give you opportunities you wouldn’t otherwise have much earlier in your career.

[wldecisions]

For better or for worse, I was on Linkedin the other day and saw a (public) post by the partner on the Cardi B case saying that was his first jury trial in 14yrs of practice.

[Anonymous User]

Big law can lead to substantive litigation experience but it is very hit or miss. My experience (8th year in big law NYC) has been mostly misses although some good experience on smaller cases and pro bono matters . I have limited deposition experience even at my seniority and on one case recently we were defending 7 depositions and partner told me I would handle all of them but ended up he took 6 and then I took 1 with him in the room. Another case the partner had me literally write his emails to the client and then would substantially re-write them (eg attached is the Court’s decision saying X). Other cases have been better in terms of taking the lead on drafting motions, communicating with opposing counsel and the client. My experience frankly is that smarter partners are willing to let a senior associate lead, but the micro-manager type of partner is that way with everyone from junior associates all the way to senior associates and junior partners.

So here is the issue as I see it - it comes down to resources and slim opportunities in the latter steps of litigation. The client will pay BL partners to do really important tasks, and partners, while they were mid levels did NOT get these opportunities either. It seems that because of this many partners hoard these opportunities because they are also new to them.

Now compare that to DOJ/USAOs/AGs offices. There are finite resources, and unless it’s a truly massive case, very few attorneys staffed on each matter. That means young lawyers are getting their own cases, taking depositions, and arguing in court much earlier.

That’s how the trade off goes. BL gives you much more financial security, but if you want to be a litigator the other jobs listed will give you opportunities you wouldn’t otherwise have much earlier in your career.

I'm the government lawyer from above and agree with this. The billable hour model we follow in the profession (I was part of it) does create disincentives to send cool, exciting, fun, and interesting open-court opportunities to younger lawyers.

It's an interesting topic but the bottom line is that you just can't get this experience from biglaw. And neither law firms nor the profession as a whole are doing anything meaningful to fix that problem. The net result is that if you can actually get in-the-trenches trial experience from multiple trials, by doing a few years in criminal or whatever, you're going to end up being in an elite category of litigators in the long run. Those who don't get the experience, well, most of your peers aren't either. Luckily your practices don't commonly involve suing government agencies, depending on your practice area of course.

[Anonymous User]

I am a c/o 2020 litigation associate in a very small, very busy outpost of a firm that's otherwise very big and very hierarchical i.e. not Susman, etc. I am getting significant litigation experience -- running M&Cs, taking multiple depositions, drafting MTDs etc from scratch. Part of it is the specific culture of my office, but part of it is just that we're currently understaffed. I am billing over 200 every month and am burning out. I would personally prefer to sacrifice some of this early litigation experience

[Anonymous User]

I am a c/o 2020 litigation associate in a very small, very busy outpost of a firm that's otherwise very big and very hierarchical i.e. not Susman, etc. I am getting significant litigation experience -- running M&Cs, taking multiple depositions, drafting MTDs etc from scratch. Part of it is the specific culture of my office, but part of it is just that we're currently understaffed. I am billing over 200 every month and am burning out. I would personally prefer to sacrifice some of this early litigation experience

Just to put things in perspective, in Big Law, "over 200"/month is not unusually busy -- that's kind of the normal baseline. Unusually "busy" would be well over 250/month, consistently, to get to the point where folks might complain about burn-out. So you may need to re-think the expectations unless your smaller satellite office has very different expectations.

[Anonymous User]

I am a c/o 2020 litigation associate in a very small, very busy outpost of a firm that's otherwise very big and very hierarchical i.e. not Susman, etc. I am getting significant litigation experience -- running M&Cs, taking multiple depositions, drafting MTDs etc from scratch. Part of it is the specific culture of my office, but part of it is just that we're currently understaffed. I am billing over 200 every month and am burning out. I would personally prefer to sacrifice some of this early litigation experience

Just to put things in perspective, in Big Law, "over 200"/month is not unusually busy -- that's kind of the normal baseline. Unusually "busy" would be well over 250/month, consistently, to get to the point where folks might complain about burn-out. So you may need to re-think the expectations unless your smaller satellite office has very different expectations.

Person you’re quoting. Not trying to go into a numbers one-upping thing but for context 200 is the minimum. I think the associates in our office will all end up annualizing over 2700.

That all said, 200/month annualizes to 2400. Billing 2400 is much higher than typical in my non-NYC market, especially for litigators.