Career Advice - Kind of Hate Corporate Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

[Anonymous User]

Sounds like you would enjoy public company reporting/governance style work. The busy times are pretty predictable (as you noted, 10-Ks, 10-Qs, Proxy season, etc.). You have a lot of biz dev opportunity as a partner (from what I've seen as part of their teams, I am not a partner myself) to leverage repping pubcos on their reporting work into other engagements like handling their acquisitions or licensing agreements. If looking on intelligize and section16.net and etc. would count to you as research, then you do run into a myriad of issues that require researching as well.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds like you’re at K&E?

Is poor partnership opportunities in restructuring common knowledge? My first time hearing this and I’m considering the field.

[CanadianWolf]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

[Prudent_Jurist]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

[nealric]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

I did a lot of research and writing as a tax associate. It certainly requires precision, but you don't need to bluebook your memos. It's different from writing as a litigator.

[Anonymous User]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

I did a lot of research and writing as a tax associate. It certainly requires precision, but you don't need to bluebook your memos. It's different from writing as a litigator.

Don't Westlaw/Lexis give pretty correct bluebooked citations now? Seems like you don't need the command over the (disgusting, awful, 0/10) bluebook you once did.

[transferquestiontls]

At what point in M&A does it start to get more substantive? Or does it not get much different from what OP is describing?

[Anonymous User]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

OP here. You are right, in hindsight I probably would have gone into business instead of law. But I am in my 30s and went to law school (t13 with a full scholarship and work at a V5, so I am still somewhat precise, just don't enjoy it lol). Would appreciate actual advice.

Also CanadianWolf, you can enjoy legal writing and research, and not be precise or serious (or want to litigate). Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you lol...

[CanadianWolf]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

OP here. You are right, in hindsight I probably would have gone into business instead of law. But I am in my 30s and went to law school (t13 with a full scholarship and work at a V5, so I am still somewhat precise, just don't enjoy it lol). Would appreciate actual advice.

Also CanadianWolf, you can enjoy legal writing and research, and not be precise or serious (or want to litigate). Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you lol...

Maturity issue ?

[nealric]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

I did a lot of research and writing as a tax associate. It certainly requires precision, but you don't need to bluebook your memos. It's different from writing as a litigator.

Don't Westlaw/Lexis give pretty correct bluebooked citations now? Seems like you don't need the command over the (disgusting, awful, 0/10) bluebook you once did.

Honestly not up on the latest. Back when I regularly used lexus/westlaw, the auto cites weren’t remotely blue book correct. Haven’t needed to do a fully cited memo in many years.

Either way, most tax writing in the planning/transactional world is lot less formal. There’s no court setting rules about how it should look.

[Anonymous User]

At what point in M&A does it start to get more substantive? Or does it not get much different from what OP is describing?

Define substantive. Researching and applying "the law" to a M&A deal really only comes into play with tax structuring and maybe if you have some more complicated regulatory analysis like anti trust or cross border stuff.

Yes, M&A work gets more substantive than just "find precedent and plug in this deal's details" or basic due diligence after a certain point and you can provide actual advice to clients on deal structuring or how to get through sticky negotiation points. You also learn timelines and why things are coming up (seems weird to me that OP hasnt seen if not made several deal checklists with everything laid out, that's a first year task).

But M&A will always be lots of phone calls, lots of emails all the time, lots of last minute red flags. That's just how all deals work and it's the negotiation process, whether you are the investment banker on the deal or the lawyer, and you just roll with the punches.

The skills you learn in M&A aren't "I know how to draft this clause so well" it's more of "I learn how to manage a chaotic deal process time after time without fizzling out". The best M&A lawyers are just the ones who have the best process and can keep their heads cool when everyone else is spinning out.

[jotarokujo]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

OP here. You are right, in hindsight I probably would have gone into business instead of law. But I am in my 30s and went to law school (t13 with a full scholarship and work at a V5, so I am still somewhat precise, just don't enjoy it lol). Would appreciate actual advice.

Also CanadianWolf, you can enjoy legal writing and research, and not be precise or serious (or want to litigate). Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you lol...

You can still go into business even though you went to law school. You aren't precluded from doing so

[Anonymous User]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

OP here. You are right, in hindsight I probably would have gone into business instead of law. But I am in my 30s and went to law school (t13 with a full scholarship and work at a V5, so I am still somewhat precise, just don't enjoy it lol). Would appreciate actual advice.

Also CanadianWolf, you can enjoy legal writing and research, and not be precise or serious (or want to litigate). Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you lol...

Maturity issue ?

Yes, you have a maturity issue. You came in here hating and then got your ass smoked.

MOD NOTE: User bajablast outed for anon abuse and warned.

[Anonymous User]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

OP here. You are right, in hindsight I probably would have gone into business instead of law. But I am in my 30s and went to law school (t13 with a full scholarship and work at a V5, so I am still somewhat precise, just don't enjoy it lol). Would appreciate actual advice.

Also CanadianWolf, you can enjoy legal writing and research, and not be precise or serious (or want to litigate). Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you lol...

You can still go into business even though you went to law school. You aren't precluded from doing so

Of course I can. Do you think I actually thought I was precluded from going into business, or any other field like say basket weaving? My thread is about what practice of law is right for me, not whether I should go into business.

[Anonymous User]

At what point in M&A does it start to get more substantive? Or does it not get much different from what OP is describing?

Define substantive. Researching and applying "the law" to a M&A deal really only comes into play with tax structuring and maybe if you have some more complicated regulatory analysis like anti trust or cross border stuff.

Yes, M&A work gets more substantive than just "find precedent and plug in this deal's details" or basic due diligence after a certain point and you can provide actual advice to clients on deal structuring or how to get through sticky negotiation points. You also learn timelines and why things are coming up (seems weird to me that OP hasnt seen if not made several deal checklists with everything laid out, that's a first year task).

But M&A will always be lots of phone calls, lots of emails all the time, lots of last minute red flags. That's just how all deals work and it's the negotiation process, whether you are the investment banker on the deal or the lawyer, and you just roll with the punches.

The skills you learn in M&A aren't "I know how to draft this clause so well" it's more of "I learn how to manage a chaotic deal process time after time without fizzling out". The best M&A lawyers are just the ones who have the best process and can keep their heads cool when everyone else is spinning out.

Look at that contradiction there in bold. Yes, you can know the general timeline of a deal, but things change often and quickly. I made very clear I do not like this part of the practice, and that's totally fine - it's a personal preference.

I think it's funny people are so quick to say I should not practice law or attempt to ascribe some personal shortcoming to me based off one post. I was upfront about my shortcomings (which really aren't shortcomings, but ya'll certainly want to make it be that way). I know M&A and litigation are not the right practices for me. That doesn't mean I should quit being a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

OP here. You are right, in hindsight I probably would have gone into business instead of law. But I am in my 30s and went to law school (t13 with a full scholarship and work at a V5, so I am still somewhat precise, just don't enjoy it lol). Would appreciate actual advice.

Also CanadianWolf, you can enjoy legal writing and research, and not be precise or serious (or want to litigate). Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you lol...

You can still go into business even though you went to law school. You aren't precluded from doing so

Of course I can. Do you think I actually thought I was precluded from going into business, or any other field like say basket weaving? My thread is about what practice of law is right for me, not whether I should go into business.

How sure are you that BD is your strength?

[nixy]

Can you explain what you mean by “not precise or serious enough to be a litigator,” if you like research and writing? What do you think makes you a bad fit for litigation? It generally has clearer timelines than M&A, for instance, which is something you seem to want.

Also, why not go back to restructuring if you know you enjoyed that? I know you mentioned fewer exit options, but if you hate the work that gives you the best exit options, you’re not likely to stay long enough to get to those options.

[FF2020]

Look at that contradiction there in bold. Yes, you can know the general timeline of a deal, but things change often and quickly. I made very clear I do not like this part of the practice, and that's totally fine - it's a personal preference.

I think it's funny people are so quick to say I should not practice law or attempt to ascribe some personal shortcoming to me based off one post. I was upfront about my shortcomings (which really aren't shortcomings, but ya'll certainly want to make it be that way). I know M&A and litigation are not the right practices for me. That doesn't mean I should quit being a lawyer.

I'm not sure what you're seeking here. You seem to want a practice group that:
- doesn't involve crazy timelines and fire drills and lots of emails and gives you time to decompress
- maybe involves research and writing but doesn't require you to be "precise or serious"
- gives you a set schedule
- enables you to put your business development skills to use
- gives you good exit opportunities

People are ascribing shortcomings or suggesting alternatives because of information that you yourself have put out there. If you want people to say "none of that is true, you're really amazing at M&A and securities because you're at a V5, keep plugging away and you'll be a rainmaker soon and it all gets better", well, no-one has enough information about you or your firm to make those judgments. And this is an online discussion forum filled with people who have their own insecurities, and probably don't want to see strangers being miserable. A lot of people are unhappy because they're lawyers. Suggesting alternative exits is one way to alleviate this.

As to other practice groups ... Investment funds doesn't require much research and writing either. Maybe being a regulatory lawyer of some sort (1940 Act? Financial institutions?) would. Neither of those areas requires business development skills or really gives you a chance to build a book of business. (Basically the only group where that might come up is M&A, unless you're friends with a lot of finance bankers/PE types who require lending advice or are best friends with future Zuckerbergs and Systroms who come to you on the cusp of unicorn IPOs. One of the reasons M&A lawyers are valued (if we are) is that we're in the trenches during the late nights and fire drills, and become problem-solvers on the cusp of big payouts and receipts. The price for that is long hours and unpredictable schedules.)

Maybe a public company advisory practice - if your firm has this - may not be a bad choice. You do need to be precise about SEC rules and regulations, but there's enough material out there on most questions to answer them. You won't be the key rainmaker for existing clients, but if your network involves a bunch of public companies, then maybe you'll bring in some work. There are normally good in-house exits if that's what you want (until SCOTUS decides the SEC is unconstitutional, that is).

Or you can stay miserable and keep doing what you're doing. Lord knows a lot of us do. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

[CanadianWolf]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

Would your advice be the same for one at K&E as your response mentions V5 more than once ? Thanks !

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

Would your advice be the same for one at K&E as your response mentions V5 more than once ? Thanks !

Not OP but going to assume this isn't a troll post. Yes, the opportunities available at a V5 are readily available coming from K&E. As someone who works at a V5 the only firm with opportunities materially different from the rest of the V10/V20 frankly is Wachtell.

[TX_Law3400]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

What a shitty response.

[jotarokujo]

OP wrote: "I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator." Yet, OP enjoys research & writing. Legal research & writing requires precision as well as a serious attitude.

OP: Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you.

Not to rag on OP, but OP also wrote that they are looking forward most to “business development,” not so much practicing law. So, I think you’re right that OP needs to query their choice of field.

OP here. You are right, in hindsight I probably would have gone into business instead of law. But I am in my 30s and went to law school (t13 with a full scholarship and work at a V5, so I am still somewhat precise, just don't enjoy it lol). Would appreciate actual advice.

Also CanadianWolf, you can enjoy legal writing and research, and not be precise or serious (or want to litigate). Maybe the practice of law is not the best career for you lol...

You can still go into business even though you went to law school. You aren't precluded from doing so

Of course I can. Do you think I actually thought I was precluded from going into business, or any other field like say basket weaving? My thread is about what practice of law is right for me, not whether I should go into business.

yes, why else bring up being in your 30s and whatnot. clearly you're suggesting the door is closed in some sense, or that it's too late for business to be correct. I was pushing back on that idea

I suggest going into government for the more predictable schedule.

In the meanwhile, I'd stop trying to view work as a source of fulfillment, and view it instead as a means to an end, a means of enjoying your life outside of work. Some people can get fulfillment from work, but seems like you're not in that position while in corporate biglaw. Once you start focusing on life outside of work, biglaw becomes much more bearable

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3rd year corporate big law associate, primarily M&A but I am starting to dabble in securities. I started my legal career in restructuring which I greatly enjoy (like the blend of litigation/transactional, find the subject matter very interesting - however understand it has limited exit opportunities, and even partnership opportunities in big law).

While I enjoy some aspects of the corporate practice and appreciate the broader opportunities it makes available to me down the road, I kind of hate the day to day aspects of the job. I don't really feel like a lawyer, I feel like I just answer e-mails and have phone calls. Maybe this is a good thing, to just have my job be a job and not some all consuming passion project. But the hours you put in make it all consuming anyways. I also hate the pace of deals - I never know the timelines of when something is going to happen or why, everything is always a surprise. The volume and frequency of emails can give me panic attacks at times. I just feel like I don't have an opportunity to turn off and decompress - it's always there. I thought I would eventually get used to it, but it's been two years of purely corporate work and things have not improved. I also don't feel like I am learning new skills. Diligence/look at some contracts, and "draft" some agreements (i.e. find precedent and just plug in the current deal's details).

Maybe I am just a bad corporate associate, but I miss writing and research. Writing and research is probably what I enjoy the most. However, I am not precise or serious enough to be a litigator. Also what I am looking forward to the most in the legal practice is business development, which really doesn't matter much for litigators. What keeps me plugging away is that hopefully by the time I am an NSP or partner at really any firm, I will get to focus way more on business development and less on doing actual legal work. I also have a lot of connections for a potential book that make sticking to corporate make sense in the long run. But if my life is just constantly putting out fire drills....well fuck, I don't really want to do that. I love having a set schedule. I can work every day in a month if I know I am going to ahead of time; but when I have no idea when I'm going to work and can't plan or account for much, then I literally go bonkers.

I know some corporate practices, like investment funds, are supposedly more set in stone in terms of hours and what your week will look like. But there are not a lot of opportunities to do work besides M&A at my current firm, except for securities. I am really hoping since a lot of securities work is tied to dates and quarters, there will be more consistency/predictability. There also has been a chance to do some legal research and writing. So I am trying to keep an open mind, especially since I don't have a clue what else to do to be honest.....

Not impressed with a few of the responses in here, several are not very constructive. OP - think you're describing either regulatory/specialist practice if sticking with a firm, but have you considered in-house? If you're at a V5 you'll have no problem landing a good in house role if you're patient. Minimal financial hit at your YOE (~250-280k total comp packages not uncommon) but obviously you'll stifle your salary growth. If you're married it's a good deal though. My wife and I still bring in over 400k/yr combined and there comes a point where you just need to realize that you make enough money and can rebalance your life to be happier, have kids, buy a house, chill out a bit, etc. My profession is no longer my identity, I've gotten to travel and see the world with neigh an e-mail in my inbox, and my average blood pressure plummeted. Obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I started to re-prioritize what a good life looked like when I neared my 30s and there's more to life than money - not to mention the inherent value in the relatively lower likelihoods of being fat, bald, divorced, and dying earlier (and oh by the way, a quarter mill solo or anywhere around half a mill/yr combined household is still good money - anyone that argues otherwise is an out-of-touch lost cause).

I really enjoy the mix of work in-house more than Biglaw. It's a 9-5, the work is much much more day-to-day advisory and "run-the-business" by nature. Job dependent obviously, but if you're - say- a product counsel, there's legal research and writing but the level of polish at a firm litigation shop is not at all expected. It's a great compromise and frankly the peace of mind I have being in a job that I don't foresee leaving or being pushed out of is enormous. The work is also very predictable, for instance if you're supporting a sales organization, the first month of a quarter is quiet, second picks up, third is busy, so it's easy to plan your life around (and "busy" in-house is below "normal" at a firm). Obviously all of the above sounds pretty decent, so caveats would be that you need to budget 6-12 months to find these roles because there are a lot of shitty 120k/yr in house jobs at mediocre companies out there, you need to hold out for the 250k+ roles (and coming from a V5 they will be out there). Also you'll need to do as much diligence on companies as you can. They're a total black box compared to firms so your experience can differ wildly. Though I sing the praises of in-house work I'm also at a company that is known to be a pleasure to work for. Not all companies are the same, so you have to do your diligence there.

Would your advice be the same for one at K&E as your response mentions V5 more than once ? Thanks !

Yes - despite its controversial nature in these forums, KE is extremely well respected in the real world. I actually came from KE and I found it very funny how well I was treated in interviews and job offers because of how much it contrasted with the rhetoric on these boards and behind closed doors at other firms.