Litigation career plan without long hours capability? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Let's say you did very well at a low T14 and have all the shiny gold stars, including a sought-after clerkship. You manage to drag yourself through the clerkship year despite having a chronic medical condition that would make it very hard to bill more than 120 hours per month, at least for months in a row.

If you were flexible as to geography, what litigation opportunities would you pursue that could pay reasonably well, remain interesting over the long haul, and lay the groundwork for a long career in law rather than a flameout? Not looking for perfect, here—just hoping to brainstorm a range of possibilities that could be good enough.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Whatever 9-5 government job meets your salary requirements. Career clerking, state-SG-type jobs can be cool and would care about the credentials.

I would consider avoiding traditional litigation because anything with a possibility of trial might create occasional big months.

[Anonymous User]

I know people who've carved out part-time legal jobs, but not as their starting job right out of school (or a clerkship). I've seen people go part-time at big firms, but generally after working there for a few years and establishing value (possibly in the context of a niche skill? not sure about that). The other issue with big firms is that given their general approach to hours/billing, it can be hard to cabin a part-time job to something legitimately part-time (although it's less than full-time would be).

The other thing I've seen people do is what I can best describe as solo appellate work, which is contracted on an individual basis, so you take on as much or as little as you like. However, I've really only seen people do this in criminal defense/post-conviction work. I can't say if it's only a thing in criminal defense (if it is, that would likely be because of defendants' appeal rights, and the fact that their trial counsel are often conflicted out of certain appeals b/c the defendant wants to raise an ineffective assistance claim - not in the direct appeal, but at some point, which creates a problem for the trial counsel to continue representing them) or if that's based on what I do/don't know about the non-criminal options.

Again, though, the people I see who do this work tend to have worked in criminal defense for a while and develop a niche in this particular skill which they can work into a solo practice, rather than start out with this as a formal job.

Assuming you want a traditional employer providing benefits etc., I agree that certain kinds of government work might fit the bill. There are federal jobs where your hours worked in the week - not billed - are strictly capped at 40; you're not allowed to work more than 40 and if you do, they have to give you the overtime in comp time. I don't have any personal experience with these jobs, but my impression is that the VA and Social Security fit this category. The unfortunate flip side of this is that my impression is also that these two agencies have relatively poorly-paid jobs with low levels of job satisfaction and not a lot of great career development (I think too that there can be quite a high volume in terms of reviewing benefits applications/appeals), but again, no personal experience, so just tossing it out there. There are doubtless other agencies with that requirement, though.

I do think a federal trial attorney job might be an issue in terms of hours, as LSAT Airbender suggests. Attorney advisor positions might be more suitable, but won't be litigation, although you might work with AUSAs doing litigation quite a bit.

The other kind of job that I think would be much more satisfying is staff attorney at a state supreme court or court of appeals. At least at the state where I clerked, the hours were very humane - frankly, the majority of these attorneys were women with small children. The jobs were full time, but relatively flexible as long as you handled your workload. At the coa level at least, people tended to develop niche specialties (domestic relations, workers comp, unemployment) so while that could be potentially boring, it would also likely make the job easier over time. I think SSC is slightly different wrt niche, but potentially more interesting? The pay for these jobs wasn't great, and at the COA at least there was a little bit of second-class citizenship compared to the chambers clerks (you did essentially the same kind of work but on routine/"simple" cases, and were sort of physically located separate from the chambers). But you did work directly with all the judges (if not to the same extent that the chambers clerks did) so you could make some good connections/relationships that way, which might help move to something else in the future. I also think the benefits were pretty reasonable. Last point, with your qualifications you'd be a great candidate, I think.

There are staff attorney positions like this at federal courts too - at district courts, usually for pro se and/or prisioner litigation - although I don't know as much about the required qualifications or quality of the experience. I think hours would still be reasonable, but it might depend on the caseload at that particular courthouse. You'd have to be willing to wade through pro se filings (hope you're good at reading handwriting!), which can be kind of entertaining and can be super annoying. These gigs would definitely pay better, though.

I think these kinds of jobs are usually advertised on the court's websites so best way to find them would be to just pick states you think are cool and start looking, or go to the US courts website for all the federal positions.

Finally, I sort of wonder if a federal public defender research/writing specialist position might work? I don't know too much about the hours required, but it's another kind of job that might value your background and doesn't really require billable hours.

(I've defaulted to a lot of research/writing type stuff here just based on what I happen to have seen in my time in the profession, and a general assumption on my part that pure writing positions are less exhausting and more predictable than the more on-the-ground litigation jobs, but I realize that may not always be true or may not be the case for you personally. Not sure what the workload expectations were at your clerkship - they can vary so much.)

[Anonymous User]

Assuming you want a traditional employer providing benefits etc., I agree that certain kinds of government work might fit the bill. There are federal jobs where your hours worked in the week - not billed - are strictly capped at 40; you're not allowed to work more than 40 and if you do, they have to give you the overtime in comp time. I don't have any personal experience with these jobs, but my impression is that the VA and Social Security fit this category. The unfortunate flip side of this is that my impression is also that these two agencies have relatively poorly-paid jobs with low levels of job satisfaction and not a lot of great career development (I think too that there can be quite a high volume in terms of reviewing benefits applications/appeals), but again, no personal experience, so just tossing it out there. There are doubtless other agencies with that requirement, though.

My impression is that this is more common for government attorneys who are covered by a union contract. If you're looking for government jobs, try to find out if there's a contract that spells out your hours — NOAA attorneys, for example, are capped at 40 hours a week by their contract, and it seems like a better place to work than high-volume VA/SS work.

[Anonymous User]

Government, court administration or career clerking if you liked your clerkship (second the rec to check out career roles in state courts as well as federal). I don’t think federal staff attorney roles are generally very rewarding but in state courts you’re basically helping run an arm of the state government in addition to doing legal work. There are also some good small firms that are willing to work out case-by-case special arrangements but they’re naturally hard to research and you might need a connection (try your judge?). You’re more likely to find good firms with low hours reqs in smaller legal markets.

[Anonymous User]

The advice ITT is good if you take your parameters for granted, but you should do everything in your power to make sure your healthcare/disease management is as good as it can be and then figure out what you can realistically handle.

For context, I have Type 1 diabetes and a seizure disorder and am a biglaw partner in a non trial-focused litigation practice. I can bill 200-250 hours in a month without serious issues. I can do that only because I have every medication and medical device available, and I can’t surpass that without sacrificing significant amounts of sleep (which will inevitably lead to seizures) or bumping my seizure medications to a level that makes me a zombie. I’ve made very deliberate career choices to develop a (reasonably) sustainable practice in a specialized niche. I don’t think I could be a “trial lawyer” or practice in a huge NY firm, but “biglaw” encompasses a lot more than that.

I’m not saying this to suggest that 120 hours is not actually your ceiling - it very well could be and you certainly know your situation better than I do. I’m saying this because biglaw offers the money and health insurance to get state of the art care, and (depending on your firm) can offer more flexibility to deal with your health than a lot of other jobs. To me, the trade off in lifestyle is absolutely worth it, and I would not preemptively rule it out.

[Anonymous User]

Let's say you did very well at a low T14 and have all the shiny gold stars, including a sought-after clerkship. You manage to drag yourself through the clerkship year despite having a chronic medical condition that would make it very hard to bill more than 120 hours per month, at least for months in a row.

If you were flexible as to geography, what litigation opportunities would you pursue that could pay reasonably well, remain interesting over the long haul, and lay the groundwork for a long career in law rather than a flameout? Not looking for perfect, here—just hoping to brainstorm a range of possibilities that could be good enough.

If you are super credentialed, some of the appellate practices don’t seem too bad. Otherwise, I’d say a job with the feds is probably the best bet.