Did taking trial advocacy in law school help you in your career? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Question in the title.

I'm considering taking trial advocacy next year, but it would be kind of squeezed into my already packed schedule full of doctrinals which is why I'm on the fence. I'm interested in litigation, but I'm not certain I'll become a litigator.

[Anonymous User]

Question in the title.

I'm considering taking trial advocacy next year, but it would be kind of squeezed into my already packed schedule full of doctrinals which is why I'm on the fence. I'm interested in litigation, but I'm not certain I'll become a litigator.

Also interested. FWIW, from my limited perspective (clerkships and one year of biglaw), it was really beneficial. I feel like I have a better grasp of the mechanics of trial as well as examinations (depos/on the stand). That helped at the firm in preparing depo outlines. During my clerkships, I drew from my trial ad experience when watching trials and hearings. I was a more engaged observer and could better nitpick what litigants did well or didn't do well so I could learn from them. It's also great way to practice your practical knowledge of the FRE too. It's also just different from the rest of law school (if you haven't done a lit-related clinic) and valuable, imo, for being a more complete lawyer.

[andythefir]

I took a 4 credit trial ad class pass/fail. The faculty were biglaw associates who had done 2-5 trials. If anything, it was an impediment to figuring out real trials because 5 trials is not a lot of trials. It is a talking point that you’re serious about trials, so it’s helpful in that way in case you interview for PD/ADA/AUSA.

[Anonymous User]

I can’t point to anything where having it on my transcript made the slightest difference, and I had to relearn most of it when I got to the point of actually doing a trial. But if you might end up doing litigation, it’s incredibly practical, and in that respect way more interesting than lots of courses.

I guess I’d ask around at your school to find out what the workload is like and if there are profs to avoid. My school offered a compressed version between semesters so I didn’t do it in top of other classes, though my take is that it would be somewhat more work during the semester but then a decent break when exams come around.

I know that tons of biglaw litigators never actually go to trial (take a motions advocacy course if your school offers one), but I still tend to think that if you’re not interested in taking the course, you’re probably not actually interested in litigation.

(Unlike the above poster, the people who taught our trial ad course were usually PDs or ADAs who’d done tons of them, so more helpful in that respect.)

[Anonymous User]

I thought it was really helpful, as getting some low-stakes experience in doing direct and cross examinations was very useful for outlining and conducting depositions later on.

[Anonymous User]

My trial advocacy class sparked an interest in being a trial lawyer back when I was still drinking the appellate law kool-aid. If you're on the fence about litigation it might help you explore whether you want to do trial work.

[Anonymous User]

No but I'm not a trial attorney.

[sparty99]

Question in the title.

I'm considering taking trial advocacy next year, but it would be kind of squeezed into my already packed schedule full of doctrinals which is why I'm on the fence. I'm interested in litigation, but I'm not certain I'll become a litigator.

There will probably be a time gap from when you take the course and actually do a trial. Maybe years. So you will have to relearn things. But if you want to do litigation or find out if you want to do litigation, then you should take the course. You can never fully understand litigation unless you go to trial. Discovery and depositions are all to set you up for trial. The questions you ask at trial, can also prepare you to take depositions. Trial ad might help you understand evidence. As the other person said, 5 trials in a career is not a lot. I would recommend trial advocacy is a low stake training ground. Trial advocacy isn't that difficult or time consuming either. My class met once a week.

[CanadianWolf]

Take trial advocacy. You should learn a lot.

Big law associates who have done 5 civil trials is significant trial experience--especially if all were jury trials.

From an ADA, AUSA, or PD perspective, five trials is not a lot, but there is a big difference in preparing for a civil trial than for a criminal trial. Typically, civil trials are won or lost during discovery.

[nixy]

Take trial advocacy. You should learn a lot.

Big law associates who have done 5 civil trials is significant trial experience--especially if all were jury trials.

From an ADA, AUSA, or PD perspective, five trials is not a lot, but there is a big difference in preparing for a civil trial than for a criminal trial. Typically, civil trials are won or lost during discovery.

Trial ad courses don’t generally address discovery, though - they’re much more about the nuts and bolts of openings, closings, direct, cross, etc.

[crazywafflez]

Hey OP. I do Fed Crim now (was in regional BL)- I took trial ad. I don't remember it at all and it probs didn't help me. I've only had 2 trials. Frankly, the most useful class as far as practice, for me at least, has been evidence. Evidence for trial situations is extremely important- and you don't want to look distraught in front of the jury when you're trying to get in something important but opposing counsel objects 8 times.
Like the others have said, civil lit is won in discovery. I don't think you need trial ad and you'll be fine without- I'd take it though if you have room and want to learn or if you want to do ADA/PD stuff off the bat.

[Lacepiece23]

Question in the title.

I'm considering taking trial advocacy next year, but it would be kind of squeezed into my already packed schedule full of doctrinals which is why I'm on the fence. I'm interested in litigation, but I'm not certain I'll become a litigator.

Nothing has helped me more. I’m like 8 years out. Only fine civil trials. Have had 3 jury and a bench. A couple of arbs as well and am heading to my fourth jury trial soon.

Trial as is the best class I took in law school by far. Yes, I still have to relearn before every trial. But I know what I have to relearn. Further, those reps of questioning witnesses are great.

I’ve taken over 50 deps by this point. Most lawyers my year have second-chaired maybe 1 jury trial and taken less than ten deps.

Trial ad set me up with the confidence to do my first jury trial one year into biglaw (1983 prisoners case I won) and to keep going.

Im obviously not the best. But I’m far ahead of most lawyers my age experience wise.

If you tack on my mock trial experience, I think you can add another full civil trial to my belt, maybe 2 (I think mock trial is fantastic and everyone should do it).

[Anonymous User]

Alright thanks for all the help you guys! I will take the course.