What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work? Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm
What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
I went to a law school classmate's wedding over the weekend and had an interesting conversation with my old group of friends about which of 2 friends has the better exit options in general. Interestingly, each friend thinks the other is in the better position.
Naturally, I now pose the question to you all. Which would you rather take based on better exit options?
Vault 5 law firm, Counsel position, but you spend your time managing doc reviews, taking non-key depositions, and arguing non dispositive issues, zero trials with your regular practice but some trial opportunity with pro bono matters. Zero partner chances.
OR
Mid-sized regional law firm in a major city, 10th year senior associate, smaller and less prestigious matters but they are leanly staffed, so you take key depositions, argue non dispositive issues (and occasionally dispositive ones), and also have a small (2-4 day) jury trial once every 2 years ish on your actual cases. Zero partner chances.
Naturally, I now pose the question to you all. Which would you rather take based on better exit options?
Vault 5 law firm, Counsel position, but you spend your time managing doc reviews, taking non-key depositions, and arguing non dispositive issues, zero trials with your regular practice but some trial opportunity with pro bono matters. Zero partner chances.
OR
Mid-sized regional law firm in a major city, 10th year senior associate, smaller and less prestigious matters but they are leanly staffed, so you take key depositions, argue non dispositive issues (and occasionally dispositive ones), and also have a small (2-4 day) jury trial once every 2 years ish on your actual cases. Zero partner chances.
Last edited by gaddockteeg on Wed May 31, 2023 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:36 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
Is this an exit to in-house? If so, skills all the way. They need people hitting the ground from day 1. They don’t care what title you had in the firm.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
Initially, this was my argument too but does the next employer really know what depositions are key and which ones aren't? Probably not. Also, the differences in skills are likely just on the margins?
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:47 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
They're both litigators? Both have virtually no chance of going in house.
-
- Posts: 428122
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
For government, it will probably be substance, in the absence of things like connections, or they'd just hire someone with a fancy firm background *and* decent experience . And while there are people on here who seem to think that substance doesn't matter in interviews and anyone can just fake having sufficient skills/experience, believe me, they can't. Sure, the V5 person could be a brilliant lawyer who can sell their spectacular potential with the right training, and the mid-sized firm person could just be a dud who's plodded through their responsibilities. But demonstrated ability goes a long way.
I know the question was about in-house, but b/c government is such a common landing ground for litigators, figured I'd chime in.
(also, how depressing that someone could be in a counsel position doing nothing more than managing doc reviews, taking non-key depositions, and arguing non dispositive issues, with mayyyybe some pro bono trial work.)
I know the question was about in-house, but b/c government is such a common landing ground for litigators, figured I'd chime in.
(also, how depressing that someone could be in a counsel position doing nothing more than managing doc reviews, taking non-key depositions, and arguing non dispositive issues, with mayyyybe some pro bono trial work.)
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:31 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
I'm interested in being a lit partner at my V20 but I recognize how hard and unlikely that is. I want to do substantive work and make decisions, not ride biglaw out and collect paychecks.
If I don't end up making partner at this firm, how common is it for people to lateral down the Vault rankings and end up with the partner title at a different firm? What does the path look like - can you enter at partner, or enter at like counsel with the understanding that you're on the partner track?
If I don't end up making partner at this firm, how common is it for people to lateral down the Vault rankings and end up with the partner title at a different firm? What does the path look like - can you enter at partner, or enter at like counsel with the understanding that you're on the partner track?
-
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:36 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
gaddockteeg wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:21 pmInitially, this was my argument too but does the next employer really know what depositions are key and which ones aren't? Probably not. Also, the differences in skills are likely just on the margins?
The people making the hiring decisions (e.g., Head of Litigation, AGC, GC) should know enough to discern whether that person has extensive experience in the work that matters. Maybe there would be naivety if a non-legal person was in charge of hiring, but rarely is a lit person going to be the first legal hire.
There can be vast differences in skill. We see a wide range of candidates for in-house positions, and it's quite easy to sift out those with quality experience from those who are just blustering about their work.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
To be clear, the question wasn't just about in-house but government too. Both of these guys are still planning to work at their current respective firms for the short term future but they're just thinking about what comes next and that very well could mean government.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 7:37 pmFor government, it will probably be substance, in the absence of things like connections, or they'd just hire someone with a fancy firm background *and* decent experience . And while there are people on here who seem to think that substance doesn't matter in interviews and anyone can just fake having sufficient skills/experience, believe me, they can't. Sure, the V5 person could be a brilliant lawyer who can sell their spectacular potential with the right training, and the mid-sized firm person could just be a dud who's plodded through their responsibilities. But demonstrated ability goes a long way.
I know the question was about in-house, but b/c government is such a common landing ground for litigators, figured I'd chime in.
(also, how depressing that someone could be in a counsel position doing nothing more than managing doc reviews, taking non-key depositions, and arguing non dispositive issues, with mayyyybe some pro bono trial work.)
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
If you mean make partner as in get equity, you need to bring business or demonstrate an ability to do so quickly.axiomaticapiary wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 8:06 pmI'm interested in being a lit partner at my V20 but I recognize how hard and unlikely that is. I want to do substantive work and make decisions, not ride biglaw out and collect paychecks.
If I don't end up making partner at this firm, how common is it for people to lateral down the Vault rankings and end up with the partner title at a different firm? What does the path look like - can you enter at partner, or enter at like counsel with the understanding that you're on the partner track?
If you're talking nonequity partner, it's not that unusual but as this thread suggests, its basically the same thing as associate with a different title.
source: I am a nonequity partner
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
Fair enough. I admit that I have never worked in house and so have never hired with that in mind.jhett wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 9:55 pmgaddockteeg wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:21 pmInitially, this was my argument too but does the next employer really know what depositions are key and which ones aren't? Probably not. Also, the differences in skills are likely just on the margins?
The people making the hiring decisions (e.g., Head of Litigation, AGC, GC) should know enough to discern whether that person has extensive experience in the work that matters. Maybe there would be naivety if a non-legal person was in charge of hiring, but rarely is a lit person going to be the first legal hire.
There can be vast differences in skill. We see a wide range of candidates for in-house positions, and it's quite easy to sift out those with quality experience from those who are just blustering about their work.
You've got me thinking though. I work at a firm and have done hiring here but I can't say with confidence that I can sift out those with quality experience from those that are blustering. I ask about depositions, writing experience, oral arguments, favorite matters, but all well-prepared candidates generally feel equal to me.
Can you give me an example? This is now for my own curiousity and less for this thread.
-
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:36 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
You've got me thinking though. I work at a firm and have done hiring here but I can't say with confidence that I can sift out those with quality experience from those that are blustering. I ask about depositions, writing experience, oral arguments, favorite matters, but all well-prepared candidates generally feel equal to me.
Can you give me an example? This is now for my own curiousity and less for this thread.
For me personally, I like to dig into story behind a particular task that they did, push them on why they made certain decisions (and what decisions they made versus what the partner dictated), and hypotheticals about other ways a matter may have turned out.
I'm not lit, I'm IP, so I will use an example from my practice area. I may ask a candidate about a particularly difficult office action that they had to respond to. Once they answer, I'll dig further into how they handled communications with the patent examiner, whether they considered filing a continuation, if there was anything they wished they would change in the specification, how they would have handled different prior art, etc. I find if I just keep asking questions and having them talk about the matter, I can determine whether they learned from the experience, actually did meaningful work, if they considered all the factors, and made good decisions given what they knew at the time.
-
- Posts: 428122
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
v5 counsel is pretty hard to beat. not sure how you get there just doing doc review and not learning anything substantive
-
- Posts: 428122
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
They may well all have had similar enough levels of substantive experience that there wasn’t much of a difference between them. I wouldn’t have had as strong an opinion on this until we interviewed someone whose claim to experience crumbled a bit under questioning. (I wouldn’t say they lied in their materials but they definitely massaged the info a bit.)gaddockteeg wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:54 amFair enough. I admit that I have never worked in house and so have never hired with that in mind.jhett wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 9:55 pmgaddockteeg wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:21 pmInitially, this was my argument too but does the next employer really know what depositions are key and which ones aren't? Probably not. Also, the differences in skills are likely just on the margins?
The people making the hiring decisions (e.g., Head of Litigation, AGC, GC) should know enough to discern whether that person has extensive experience in the work that matters. Maybe there would be naivety if a non-legal person was in charge of hiring, but rarely is a lit person going to be the first legal hire.
There can be vast differences in skill. We see a wide range of candidates for in-house positions, and it's quite easy to sift out those with quality experience from those who are just blustering about their work.
You've got me thinking though. I work at a firm and have done hiring here but I can't say with confidence that I can sift out those with quality experience from those that are blustering. I ask about depositions, writing experience, oral arguments, favorite matters, but all well-prepared candidates generally feel equal to me.
Can you give me an example? This is now for my own curiousity and less for this thread.
For government interviews, we ask directly about trial experience (and/courtroom experience - many don’t have trial experience) and we will drill down into what exactly they did, how did they prepare, what issue were they addressing, what was the outcome, that kind of thing. People puffing up their experience generally can’t really sustain the illusion.
Conversely, if someone just admits to not having that level of experience and talks about what they have done, that’s fine. Especially if they can talk about why they want this particular job and show that they’ve really thought about what the job entails. That person may well still lose out to someone who can do that *and* has a bunch of more substantive experience, but it’s not a foregone conclusion.
Some people doing the hiring very much like to take people with all the conventional credentials (top school/grades, clerkship, big firm) and train them up from scratch. Other people (or the previous people given specific personnel needs) prefer someone who can hit the ground running, so to speak, but there’s definitely a concern about whether that hire has any bad habits they’ll have to be trained out of, which is arguably tougher than training a biglaw grinder who hasn’t done enough to form bad habits.
I do think that original V5 example could look a little past it, so to speak, depending on how long they’ve actually been practicing. If they’re also 10 years out and really haven’t done any of the substantive elements of litigation, I think there’d be a legitimate concern about why they didn’t try to get more substantive experience sooner and whether they actually really want to do this work. The midlaw associate wouldn’t raise that concern at all.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
First, I appreciate all the comments and votes. It's interesting that the comments seem to lean in one direction while the votes seem to lead in another.
@gov anon, can you share a little more about the trial experience questioning? This sounds like the type of questioning that I personally do but I have not ever really been able to differentiate between any of the well prepared answers. Most don't have trial experience like you said but I actually recently interviewed 4 different associates to join my team, all mid to senior level (years 4 through 6) with varying levels of courtroom experience.
Of course, some had more substantive experiences than others but all 4 talked about the experiences they did have in a meaningful way. Some certainly seemed like less consequential hearings than others but I didn't assign fault to the lawyer for that. Of course, this is pretty different than a 10th year.
@ Jhett, thanks for that. IP does seem different. I have a secondary industry focus apart from general litigation and I do occasionally ask more targeted questions about the law. But often times it feels a little unfair to expect instant recall on past matters or specific law. I probably couldn't answer specific questions about the motion I wrote last week without spending at least an awkward 30 seconds sitting quietly and thinking about it. How do you handle that?
@gov anon, can you share a little more about the trial experience questioning? This sounds like the type of questioning that I personally do but I have not ever really been able to differentiate between any of the well prepared answers. Most don't have trial experience like you said but I actually recently interviewed 4 different associates to join my team, all mid to senior level (years 4 through 6) with varying levels of courtroom experience.
Of course, some had more substantive experiences than others but all 4 talked about the experiences they did have in a meaningful way. Some certainly seemed like less consequential hearings than others but I didn't assign fault to the lawyer for that. Of course, this is pretty different than a 10th year.
@ Jhett, thanks for that. IP does seem different. I have a secondary industry focus apart from general litigation and I do occasionally ask more targeted questions about the law. But often times it feels a little unfair to expect instant recall on past matters or specific law. I probably couldn't answer specific questions about the motion I wrote last week without spending at least an awkward 30 seconds sitting quietly and thinking about it. How do you handle that?
I obviously don't know for sure but I imagine by just billing a lot of hours. At my firm that's pretty much 50% of getting past senior associate. Also, it's not as though v5 counsel has no substantive experience at all, just less of it than the 10th year.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:36 pmv5 counsel is pretty hard to beat. not sure how you get there just doing doc review and not learning anything substantive
-
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:36 pm
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
@ Jhett, thanks for that. IP does seem different. I have a secondary industry focus apart from general litigation and I do occasionally ask more targeted questions about the law. But often times it feels a little unfair to expect instant recall on past matters or specific law. I probably couldn't answer specific questions about the motion I wrote last week without spending at least an awkward 30 seconds sitting quietly and thinking about it. How do you handle that?
I try to have the candidate talk about a particularly interesting or memorable matter. Everyone should have certain matters that stick out more than others. I don't hold it against someone for forgetting the details of some of the things they work on, but it's a red flag if you draw a blank for everything. As a candidate, you should be prepared to discuss in depth a few matters that show off your experience and skills.
-
- Posts: 428122
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
Gov anon here. In the case I’m thinking of, the applicant represented themselves as having done “trials” but when we probed further, it turned out that it was 2, and actually the second was a retrial of the first, and their experience was direct of one witness.
Honestly I think it’s likely no one you interviewed tried to inflate their experience and they answered you honestly. If they’re all actually qualified, no, you’re not going to be able to see major differences between them. And maybe I’m fooling myself and everyone’s puffing themselves up. I just tend to think that if you don’t genuinely have certain kinds of experience, you just don’t know enough about what you haven’t done to put up a front. If you’ve had enough exposure to certain kinds of work to know all the important stuff, even if you haven’t done it, that’s still some kind of experience.
You asked about whether the next employer can know if a deposition was a key one or not. Just ask them what kind of witness it was, what info the witness had, what role did they play in summary judgment/settlement/trial? Sure, maybe someone’s going to flat out lie and claim they deposed opposing party’s key expert when they actually prepared a portion of the outline and sat in the room, but I think most people won’t. Maybe that’s naive.
Honestly I think it’s likely no one you interviewed tried to inflate their experience and they answered you honestly. If they’re all actually qualified, no, you’re not going to be able to see major differences between them. And maybe I’m fooling myself and everyone’s puffing themselves up. I just tend to think that if you don’t genuinely have certain kinds of experience, you just don’t know enough about what you haven’t done to put up a front. If you’ve had enough exposure to certain kinds of work to know all the important stuff, even if you haven’t done it, that’s still some kind of experience.
You asked about whether the next employer can know if a deposition was a key one or not. Just ask them what kind of witness it was, what info the witness had, what role did they play in summary judgment/settlement/trial? Sure, maybe someone’s going to flat out lie and claim they deposed opposing party’s key expert when they actually prepared a portion of the outline and sat in the room, but I think most people won’t. Maybe that’s naive.
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:38 am
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
This take has not borne out in my experience as an in house former litigator who has met many other in house former litigators.Dr Tobias Funke wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 6:58 pmThey're both litigators? Both have virtually no chance of going in house.
-
- Posts: 428122
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: What's more important for exit options? title or the substance of work?
This is all stuff a first year patent associate does though ( i think i responded to an office action and filed a con in my first week). Its very different than figuring out whether a 8th year is doing truly substantive work.jhett wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:22 pmYou've got me thinking though. I work at a firm and have done hiring here but I can't say with confidence that I can sift out those with quality experience from those that are blustering. I ask about depositions, writing experience, oral arguments, favorite matters, but all well-prepared candidates generally feel equal to me.
Can you give me an example? This is now for my own curiousity and less for this thread.
For me personally, I like to dig into story behind a particular task that they did, push them on why they made certain decisions (and what decisions they made versus what the partner dictated), and hypotheticals about other ways a matter may have turned out.
I'm not lit, I'm IP, so I will use an example from my practice area. I may ask a candidate about a particularly difficult office action that they had to respond to. Once they answer, I'll dig further into how they handled communications with the patent examiner, whether they considered filing a continuation, if there was anything they wished they would change in the specification, how they would have handled different prior art, etc. I find if I just keep asking questions and having them talk about the matter, I can determine whether they learned from the experience, actually did meaningful work, if they considered all the factors, and made good decisions given what they knew at the time.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login