Top Law Schools

Currently a first year at a big law firm doing corporate work. I'd like to switch to litigation (have thought a lot about this for a number of months and am very sure that I would like to switch).

Has anyone been able to make this switch at their firm? If so, I would appreciate any advice regarding who at the firm to approach / how to frame the conversation. I understand that clerking may be another path to switching, but would prefer to make switch groups at the firm if possible. I assume that it would be essentially impossible to make this switch by lateraling.

I have received positive feedback on my work from the people that I have worked with / in my formal review, so I am hoping that the firm will be willing to work with me to make this switch, but I'm very nervous about how to approach this.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:00 pm

Currently a first year at a big law firm doing corporate work. I'd like to switch to litigation (have thought a lot about this for a number of months and am very sure that I would like to switch).

Has anyone been able to make this switch at their firm? If so, I would appreciate any advice regarding who at the firm to approach / how to frame the conversation. I understand that clerking may be another path to switching, but would prefer to make switch groups at the firm if possible. I assume that it would be essentially impossible to make this switch by lateraling.

I have received positive feedback on my work from the people that I have worked with / in my formal review, so I am hoping that the firm will be willing to work with me to make this switch, but I'm very nervous about how to approach this.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

At a top biglaw firm in a major market. I've heard of at least two associates doing this. One had significant diversity factors and great reviews in corporate. One had more than sufficient credentials for litigation but started in restructuring, then decided to switch after a few years.

The sense I get is this only happens for people with one of the above - significant diversity factors or already have litigation credentials. If you don't have either at your firm, lateralling to a less selective firm might allow you to make this switch. Obviously, clerking for a respected judge in a good circuit/district would be another way to switch. Just don't clerk in a flyover district and expect your term to take you back as a litigation associate. You're more likely to be out of a job.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:00 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:00 pm

Currently a first year at a big law firm doing corporate work. I'd like to switch to litigation (have thought a lot about this for a number of months and am very sure that I would like to switch).

Has anyone been able to make this switch at their firm? If so, I would appreciate any advice regarding who at the firm to approach / how to frame the conversation. I understand that clerking may be another path to switching, but would prefer to make switch groups at the firm if possible. I assume that it would be essentially impossible to make this switch by lateraling.

I have received positive feedback on my work from the people that I have worked with / in my formal review, so I am hoping that the firm will be willing to work with me to make this switch, but I'm very nervous about how to approach this.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

At a top biglaw firm in a major market. I've heard of at least two associates doing this. One had significant diversity factors and great reviews in corporate. One had more than sufficient credentials for litigation but started in restructuring, then decided to switch after a few years.

The sense I get is this only happens for people with one of the above - significant diversity factors or already have litigation credentials. If you don't have either at your firm, lateralling to a less selective firm might allow you to make this switch. Obviously, clerking for a respected judge in a good circuit/district would be another way to switch. Just don't clerk in a flyover district and expect your term to take you back as a litigation associate. You're more likely to be out of a job.

Thank you. I have neither diversity factors nor litigation credentials (assume litigation credentials refer to having clerked?). I know of two associates at my current firm who were able to switch from corporate to lit with neither, so I'm hoping there's still a chance, but understand that it will likely be a tough sell.

Would you recommend initiating a conversation at my current firm, or trying to seek out a clerkship instead?

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:50 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:00 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:00 pm

Currently a first year at a big law firm doing corporate work. I'd like to switch to litigation (have thought a lot about this for a number of months and am very sure that I would like to switch).

Has anyone been able to make this switch at their firm? If so, I would appreciate any advice regarding who at the firm to approach / how to frame the conversation. I understand that clerking may be another path to switching, but would prefer to make switch groups at the firm if possible. I assume that it would be essentially impossible to make this switch by lateraling.

I have received positive feedback on my work from the people that I have worked with / in my formal review, so I am hoping that the firm will be willing to work with me to make this switch, but I'm very nervous about how to approach this.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

At a top biglaw firm in a major market. I've heard of at least two associates doing this. One had significant diversity factors and great reviews in corporate. One had more than sufficient credentials for litigation but started in restructuring, then decided to switch after a few years.

The sense I get is this only happens for people with one of the above - significant diversity factors or already have litigation credentials. If you don't have either at your firm, lateralling to a less selective firm might allow you to make this switch. Obviously, clerking for a respected judge in a good circuit/district would be another way to switch. Just don't clerk in a flyover district and expect your term to take you back as a litigation associate. You're more likely to be out of a job.

Thank you. I have neither diversity factors nor litigation credentials (assume litigation credentials refer to having clerked?). I know of two associates at my current firm who were able to switch from corporate to lit with neither, so I'm hoping there's still a chance, but understand that it will likely be a tough sell.

Would you recommend initiating a conversation at my current firm, or trying to seek out a clerkship instead?

not previous poster, but litigation credentials mean law review, stellar grades, etc. since lit at top firms is more prestige focused than corporate. If you don't have the above, might still be worth asking your firm. But you should also start applying for clerkships and/or looking to lateral to a firm where you can do litigation.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:00 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:00 pm

Currently a first year at a big law firm doing corporate work. I'd like to switch to litigation (have thought a lot about this for a number of months and am very sure that I would like to switch).

Has anyone been able to make this switch at their firm? If so, I would appreciate any advice regarding who at the firm to approach / how to frame the conversation. I understand that clerking may be another path to switching, but would prefer to make switch groups at the firm if possible. I assume that it would be essentially impossible to make this switch by lateraling.

I have received positive feedback on my work from the people that I have worked with / in my formal review, so I am hoping that the firm will be willing to work with me to make this switch, but I'm very nervous about how to approach this.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

At a top biglaw firm in a major market. I've heard of at least two associates doing this. One had significant diversity factors and great reviews in corporate. One had more than sufficient credentials for litigation but started in restructuring, then decided to switch after a few years.

The sense I get is this only happens for people with one of the above - significant diversity factors or already have litigation credentials. If you don't have either at your firm, lateralling to a less selective firm might allow you to make this switch. Obviously, clerking for a respected judge in a good circuit/district would be another way to switch. Just don't clerk in a flyover district and expect your term to take you back as a litigation associate. You're more likely to be out of a job.

Comment on flyover district seems harsh? Even circuit but not “good” circuit?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:24 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:50 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:00 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:00 pm

Currently a first year at a big law firm doing corporate work. I'd like to switch to litigation (have thought a lot about this for a number of months and am very sure that I would like to switch).

Has anyone been able to make this switch at their firm? If so, I would appreciate any advice regarding who at the firm to approach / how to frame the conversation. I understand that clerking may be another path to switching, but would prefer to make switch groups at the firm if possible. I assume that it would be essentially impossible to make this switch by lateraling.

I have received positive feedback on my work from the people that I have worked with / in my formal review, so I am hoping that the firm will be willing to work with me to make this switch, but I'm very nervous about how to approach this.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

At a top biglaw firm in a major market. I've heard of at least two associates doing this. One had significant diversity factors and great reviews in corporate. One had more than sufficient credentials for litigation but started in restructuring, then decided to switch after a few years.

The sense I get is this only happens for people with one of the above - significant diversity factors or already have litigation credentials. If you don't have either at your firm, lateralling to a less selective firm might allow you to make this switch. Obviously, clerking for a respected judge in a good circuit/district would be another way to switch. Just don't clerk in a flyover district and expect your term to take you back as a litigation associate. You're more likely to be out of a job.

Thank you. I have neither diversity factors nor litigation credentials (assume litigation credentials refer to having clerked?). I know of two associates at my current firm who were able to switch from corporate to lit with neither, so I'm hoping there's still a chance, but understand that it will likely be a tough sell.

Would you recommend initiating a conversation at my current firm, or trying to seek out a clerkship instead?

not previous poster, but litigation credentials mean law review, stellar grades, etc. since lit at top firms is more prestige focused than corporate. If you don't have the above, might still be worth asking your firm. But you should also start applying for clerkships and/or looking to lateral to a firm where you can do litigation.

Thank you! Had good (not stellar) grades from HYS, so I'm not sure that I can get a competitive clerkship, but will start looking. Appreciate all the advice!

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 12:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:24 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:50 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:00 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 23, 2023 11:00 pm

Currently a first year at a big law firm doing corporate work. I'd like to switch to litigation (have thought a lot about this for a number of months and am very sure that I would like to switch).

Has anyone been able to make this switch at their firm? If so, I would appreciate any advice regarding who at the firm to approach / how to frame the conversation. I understand that clerking may be another path to switching, but would prefer to make switch groups at the firm if possible. I assume that it would be essentially impossible to make this switch by lateraling.

I have received positive feedback on my work from the people that I have worked with / in my formal review, so I am hoping that the firm will be willing to work with me to make this switch, but I'm very nervous about how to approach this.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

At a top biglaw firm in a major market. I've heard of at least two associates doing this. One had significant diversity factors and great reviews in corporate. One had more than sufficient credentials for litigation but started in restructuring, then decided to switch after a few years.

The sense I get is this only happens for people with one of the above - significant diversity factors or already have litigation credentials. If you don't have either at your firm, lateralling to a less selective firm might allow you to make this switch. Obviously, clerking for a respected judge in a good circuit/district would be another way to switch. Just don't clerk in a flyover district and expect your term to take you back as a litigation associate. You're more likely to be out of a job.

Thank you. I have neither diversity factors nor litigation credentials (assume litigation credentials refer to having clerked?). I know of two associates at my current firm who were able to switch from corporate to lit with neither, so I'm hoping there's still a chance, but understand that it will likely be a tough sell.

Would you recommend initiating a conversation at my current firm, or trying to seek out a clerkship instead?

not previous poster, but litigation credentials mean law review, stellar grades, etc. since lit at top firms is more prestige focused than corporate. If you don't have the above, might still be worth asking your firm. But you should also start applying for clerkships and/or looking to lateral to a firm where you can do litigation.

Thank you! Had good (not stellar) grades from HYS, so I'm not sure that I can get a competitive clerkship, but will start looking. Appreciate all the advice!

If you had good grades at HYS that is good enough to get lit at nearly all V50 firms

People be wildin’ out. “Flyover district”? Please.

A3 clerkship plus strong grades at a good law school is more than enough. LR is a plus but a functional necessity at certain firms/lit boutiques that you would probably already know about if you were considering them.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 11:35 pm

People be wildin’ out. “Flyover district”? Please.

A3 clerkship plus strong grades at a good law school is more than enough. LR is a plus but a functional necessity at certain firms/lit boutiques that you would probably already know about if you were considering them.

The flyover district comment is absolutely wild. Especially since OP already works at this firm and therefore has connections there. Even people I know in flyover districts who cold applied to major markets got jobs with great firms.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:49 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 11:35 pm

People be wildin’ out. “Flyover district”? Please.

A3 clerkship plus strong grades at a good law school is more than enough. LR is a plus but a functional necessity at certain firms/lit boutiques that you would probably already know about if you were considering them.

The flyover district comment is absolutely wild. Especially since OP already works at this firm and therefore has connections there. Even people I know in flyover districts who cold applied to major markets got jobs with great firms.

This is the flyover district poster - I'd caution OP in the current market. If their firm's litigation practice is busy and hiring, they should clerk anywhere and expect to return. But this past post-clerkship hiring cycle, many top large firms refused to take back a significant portion of their clerks. Now, OP can probably find a less prestigious firm even after a flyover district clerkship, but it won't be as easy as everyone is making it seem.

Also, the concept of a 'good' circuit is reductive and outdated, but there are certainly bad, good, great, and exemplary circuit judges. Clerking for a bad circuit judge isn't necessarily a career advancing move, per se.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 26, 2023 8:51 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:49 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 11:35 pm

People be wildin’ out. “Flyover district”? Please.

A3 clerkship plus strong grades at a good law school is more than enough. LR is a plus but a functional necessity at certain firms/lit boutiques that you would probably already know about if you were considering them.

The flyover district comment is absolutely wild. Especially since OP already works at this firm and therefore has connections there. Even people I know in flyover districts who cold applied to major markets got jobs with great firms.

This is the flyover district poster - I'd caution OP in the current market. If their firm's litigation practice is busy and hiring, they should clerk anywhere and expect to return. But this past post-clerkship hiring cycle, many top large firms refused to take back a significant portion of their clerks. Now, OP can probably find a less prestigious firm even after a flyover district clerkship, but it won't be as easy as everyone is making it seem.

Also, the concept of a 'good' circuit is reductive and outdated, but there are certainly bad, good, great, and exemplary circuit judges. Clerking for a bad circuit judge isn't necessarily a career advancing move, per se.

Name the firms then. This is a firm problem, not a clerking problem. The point is even if their specific firm wouldn’t take them back, others certainly would. So many law clerks (in this current market which isn’t the best) I know traded up for better firms, even from flyover districts. My point is that if OP’s original firm doesn’t value that experience enough to bring them back on, another firm will.

Also as far as a “bad circuit judge isn’t necessarily a career advancing move,” I strongly disagree. It really really sounds to me like the flyover district poster did not clerk. On the circuit level, even if you’re with a less respected judge, you’re working on meaningful cases and on panels with so many other judges. Every Judge and their law clerks on each panel work together, often dine together, and generally spend time making connections with each other. If your definition of career advancing is another serious gold star, maybe those things aren’t helpful. But in my world, those connections I made while clerking have made a huge difference in the jobs and opportunities I’ve received afterwards.

I’m not trying to get into some big argument about the merits of clerking, but I think the sweeping generalizations you’re making are rooted in a misunderstanding of what the job actually entails. I am not saying every law clerk from every judge is going to have a stellar career, but they will have a leg up. This leg up can be as small as being able to apply to the law clerks only posting on firm websites or as large as having a co-clerk or judge (maybe not even your own!) recommend you for a highly sought after position.

I did it. Unlike what the other poster suggested, it had nothing to do with diversity factor. I don’t think a firm cares about losing a diverse associate who is leaving the firm voluntarily (which some do if they can’t switch within the firm), and if you stayed in the old group, you’d still be diverse/nondiverse. As far as performance, unless you are getting terrible reviews or a terrible reputation, I don’t think it matters either. It never came up as a point of consideration. I don’t think the firm partners that I talked to who had decision making powers cared to even look at those reviews. I didn’t work with them either so they wouldn’t have knowledge about my performance. At my firm it’s all about 1) whether the firm in general as a policy honors individual preferences for practice group placements and 2) whether there is room for a new associate in that practice group he/she wants to join.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 28, 2023 7:14 pm

I did it. Unlike what the other poster suggested, it had nothing to do with diversity factor. I don’t think a firm cares about losing a diverse associate who is leaving the firm voluntarily (which some do if they can’t switch within the firm), and if you stayed in the old group, you’d still be diverse/nondiverse. As far as performance, unless you are getting terrible reviews or a terrible reputation, I don’t think it matters either. It never came up as a point of consideration. I don’t think the firm partners that I talked to who had decision making powers cared to even look at those reviews. I didn’t work with them either so they wouldn’t have knowledge about my performance. At my firm it’s all about 1) whether the firm in general as a policy honors individual preferences for practice group placements and 2) whether there is room for a new associate in that practice group he/she wants to join.

Thank you for this helpful response! Would you mind sharing who you first spoke to at the firm (like a partner mentor?) and how you framed the conversation?

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:50 am

Thank you. I have neither diversity factors nor litigation credentials (assume litigation credentials refer to having clerked?). I know of two associates at my current firm who were able to switch from corporate to lit with neither, so I'm hoping there's still a chance, but understand that it will likely be a tough sell.

Would you recommend initiating a conversation at my current firm, or trying to seek out a clerkship instead?

What the hell? Why aren't you asking them instead of strangers on the internet?

Dr Tobias Funke wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 05, 2023 7:43 am

criticalmundane wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:50 am

Thank you. I have neither diversity factors nor litigation credentials (assume litigation credentials refer to having clerked?). I know of two associates at my current firm who were able to switch from corporate to lit with neither, so I'm hoping there's still a chance, but understand that it will likely be a tough sell.

Would you recommend initiating a conversation at my current firm, or trying to seek out a clerkship instead?

What the hell? Why aren't you asking them instead of strangers on the internet?

I've already spoken to them. Their situation was a little bit different, which is why I'm also asking here.

In my experience at a V50, every single one who made the jump from corporate to lit was "diverse."

In my experience clerking, and tracking the outcomes of my classmates who clerked, it's very hard to get biglaw out of a clerkship unless you already practiced lit for two years or more at a biglaw firm. Even then, it's hard to trade up. I saw SDNY (White Plains), EDNY, DNJ, and 6th Circuit clerks at V50s. That's not a great outcome, considering the great work that those clerks undoubtedly did.

Not everybody can work at Kirkland, but come on.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 05, 2023 5:56 pm

I saw SDNY (White Plains), EDNY, DNJ, and 6th Circuit clerks at V50s. That's not a great outcome, considering the great work that those clerks undoubtedly did.

LOL.

Just ask. I would start with a partner you are close with, but I don't think it really matters.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 05, 2023 5:56 pm

In my experience at a V50, every single one who made the jump from corporate to lit was "diverse."

In my experience clerking, and tracking the outcomes of my classmates who clerked, it's very hard to get biglaw out of a clerkship unless you already practiced lit for two years or more at a biglaw firm. Even then, it's hard to trade up. I saw SDNY (White Plains), EDNY, DNJ, and 6th Circuit clerks at V50s. That's not a great outcome, considering the great work that those clerks undoubtedly did.

Not everybody can work at Kirkland, but come on.

There's so much wrong with this post.

First, as someone who's worked at Kirkland and has lots of respect for the firm and its lawyers, it's not exactly top of mind for 'most desirable firm out of a clerkship.'

Second, it's just not true that "it's very hard to get biglaw out of a clerkship unless you already practiced lit for two years or more at a biglaw firm." It is true that most people who clerk straight out or 1-2 years out go back to their firms, meaning there's less spots for people looking to trade up. But it's certainly possible and any A3 law clerk looking to join a biglaw firm will get offers, even in a slow hiring market like the one we're in now.

Third, "SDNY (White Plains), EDNY, DNJ, and 6th Circuit" clerkships are not top-of-the-pile clerkships. They're great clerkships, to be sure, but not quite the type of clerkships that open all the doors one might want (unless, ofc, the EDNY judge is Kovner or the CA6 judge is Sutton - or similar). Then, you'd expect most of these clerks to get a great experience, learn a lot, and go back to the firm they summered at or were an associate at before their clerkships. Not sure why that's surprising or "not a great outcome."

As an incoming first-year who's getting shoehorned into a transactional group when I made it very clear I wanted lit (and was told it was going to happen), is it dumb to start trying to lateral even though I've already lined up a district court clerkship starting in a year?

The thought of spending this year learning an irrelevant skill set and falling behind my class-year lit peers makes me sick. Also not excited to explain to my judge that I spent the year compiling sig pages and running diligence when they thought I'd be gaining relevant experience.

Some general thoughts for someone who switched from Lit to Corporate as a second year:

1. I do not think a year spent in a different group is a waste where you are learning no transferable skills. You are still learning how to work at a big law firm (responsiveness, focus on details, managing personalities, etc).

2. This has been mentioned above and it may be somewhat controversial, but talk to a partner at your firm who will actually know if a change is possible. I did not do this--I only spoke with associates. I was basically told by the associates that this would be a huge red-mark against me and I should shut up and be happy to be at the firm. When I was having my exit interview with some partners, they all said I should have reached out and asked someone at the firm who actually matters. Obviously I have no idea if this is true, but I think about it a lot because I actually really liked the firm I was at and wish I could have made it work there.

3. I ran into a lot of trouble with lateral interviews because my answer to "why do you want to change" was never very good. I was placed in a lit group not by my own choice. You would think this would be a good reason, but it never was.

Honestly, I became incredibly disillusioned with the legal industry after trying to change practice groups. Let's say I actually wanted to be placed in a litigation group when I first started working--I was still a 24 year old with little exposure to the legal industry coming into his first "real" job. The fact that I was basically locked into a decision that would affect the rest of my (realistically) 40+ year career is crazy. Admitting that this was a bad choice is somehow a huge red flag. I remember telling my recruiter I was willing to start over as a first year, take a salary cut, do whatever a firm wanted of me, and it was still really hard to change practice groups.