So you want to be a NY Corporate Associate? Forum

[lurklaw]

Poor OP chose this and is butthurt. You're special, OP, and we all feel for you. If only you weren't so good at your job, you might have been forced to make a move. Pray for OP.

Well, that's a productive comment.

Personally, I thought that was a really helpful description of whatever transactional attorneys do (god knows I don't know from personal experience).

So you're comfortable opining on the utility of a comment and, in the same breath, conceding that your opinion is totally uninformed.

Thanks for your contribution, government JD.

[zot1]

Poor OP chose this and is butthurt. You're special, OP, and we all feel for you. If only you weren't so good at your job, you might have been forced to make a move. Pray for OP.

We were so close from having a civil discussion. So close.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Poor OP chose this and is butthurt. You're special, OP, and we all feel for you. If only you weren't so good at your job, you might have been forced to make a move. Pray for OP.

Well, that's a productive comment.

Personally, I thought that was a really helpful description of whatever transactional attorneys do (god knows I don't know from personal experience).

So you're comfortable opining on the utility of a comment and, in the same breath, conceding that your opinion is totally uninformed.

Thanks for your contribution, government JD.

Don't be an ass. If you disagree, address the actual content, don't waste people's time with snark.

(Besides, my ignorance isn't because I'm in the government, it's because I'm a litigator.)

[Rahviveh]

Poor OP chose this and is butthurt. You're special, OP, and we all feel for you. If only you weren't so good at your job, you might have been forced to make a move. Pray for OP.

Well, that's a productive comment.

Personally, I thought that was a really helpful description of whatever transactional attorneys do (god knows I don't know from personal experience).

So you're comfortable opining on the utility of a comment and, in the same breath, conceding that your opinion is totally uninformed.

Thanks for your contribution, government JD.

Don't be an ass. If you disagree, address the actual content, don't waste people's time with snark.

(Besides, my ignorance isn't because I'm in the government, it's because I'm a litigator.)

You are consistently posting in biglaw threads with your useless input and humblebragging about your chill fedgov job. How about you let the biglaw people commiserate in peace

[A. Nony Mouse]

You are consistently posting in biglaw threads with your useless input and humblebragging about your chill fedgov job. How about you let the biglaw people commiserate in peace

I take your overall point, but in this particular case, the OP is describing all the problems with working in biglaw, lurklaw calls him a butthurt special snowflake, I tell lurklaw not to snark, and I'm the problem with biglaw people commiserating in peace?

[buckiguy_sucks]

How is your relationship with your wife OP

[BernieTrump]

.

[BernieTrump]

.

[bowser]

Deleted

[bowser]

Given I have 7.5 years less experience, but it doesn't seem QUITE as bad as OP makes it out to be...

for one, expected to be in office all week from 930 to 9 when you bill less than an hour a day and don't expect anything big coming down the pipe sounds crazy to me. And I work at a place known to be pretty demanding.

This is coming from someone who just missed a sweet bachelor party for work--but that was partially due to my own apathy/laziness/cowardice.

[BernieTrump]

.

[goodoldmacintosh]

FWIW - I am similar to OP minus elite UG and weaker biglaw firm but, I also have a finance background and practice corporate law. I can tell you all this, corporate law is miserable. I finished my second year and decided to pack it up for good but ultimately have struggled transitioning into a finance/consulting job. I can definitely attest to the fact that having a JD 'opens many doors.' It sure as hell does not.

Yes. People should understand when I'm saying "a JD closes doors" that I'm not talking about a Thomas Jefferson or CA mail order degree. I'm saying that in 2016, even a HYS degree closes off a huge majority of non-law doors, doors that would have otherwise been open to you, forever.

The stereotyping of lawyers as lacking quant skills is understood, but do you view the degree as a liability even if an applicant for X non-law job has an otherwise attractive background (e.g. one that satisfies quant concerns like engineering undergrad from top school, CPA, CFA, etc.)? As in, it's not even a net neutral in this circumstance?

Edit: Do you think getting a masters post-JD can help undo this damage? Is this liability a result of the degree itself or the specialization that biglaw forces people into (which you reference elsewhere)?

[BernieTrump]

.

[PMan99]

Also, what's so bad about the in-house or general counsel jobs you take if you don't make partner? That's 200 k + at reasonable hours, right?

Neither 200k+ nor reasonable hours are a given, though they're possible in the right circumstances.

But good in-house jobs are highly coveted and are a lot harder to get than incoming students generally think.

[PeanutsNJam]

Not sure this has been addressed substantively, but I could be wrong. Why haven't you been able to go in-house or anything like that OP? From what I've heard, high grades from HYS + top big firm experience is the best position you can be in for that kind of thing.

[BernieTrump]

.

[BernieTrump]

.

[PeanutsNJam]

I'm again going off things I've heard, but the nice cushy gigs where you get paid a lot to do chill shit like risk management and have "Chief"/"Executive" in your job title or whatever are 100% received through networking and relationships, and no amount of HYS/Wachtell swag can get you a job at a company where nobody knows you. Would you say this is the case? Do you think you are unable to get these jobs despite a strong network and well established relationships?

[goodoldmacintosh]

This has been a good thread and very informative. But I do want to offer one caveat, which is perhaps self evident. Sheer grit and determination has overcome the type of obstacles presented by law degrees/stereotypes noted in this thread many times, and effective networking can overcome anything that has been written about ITT thus far. It is true that a biglaw pedigree (and HYS/similarly prestigious background) is not going to make the doors fly open, but with above average effort, it can be done. If anyone is inclined, I encourage you to read about the networking tactics and tenacity of "non-target" students who get into top banking/consulting/etc. jobs. It is phenomenal. However, the law path has the "benefit" of being very formulaic. UG --> top LSAT/GPA --> top law school --> top grades --> top firm. All very high probability even with little/no networking, so those skills aren't developed. In other industries, it's far less straight forward and requires much more persistence. So, while I think the comments in this thread should rightfully give pause to aspiring law students/current law students, I don't think biglaw associates, for example, should give up, particularly if you're just starting and want to hit the eject button.

[Tls2016]

This has been a good thread and very informative. But I do want to offer one caveat, which is perhaps self evident. Sheer grit and determination has overcome the type of obstacles presented by law degrees/stereotypes noted in this thread many times, and effective networking can overcome anything that has been written about ITT thus far. It is true that a biglaw pedigree (and HYS/similarly prestigious background) is not going to make the doors fly open, but with above average effort, it can be done. If anyone is inclined, I encourage you to read about the networking tactics and tenacity of "non-target" students who get into top banking/consulting/etc. jobs. It is phenomenal. However, the law path has the "benefit" of being very formulaic. UG --> top LSAT/GPA --> top law school --> top grades --> top firm. All very high probability even with little/no networking, so those skills aren't developed. In other industries, it's far less straight forward and requires much more persistence. So, while I think the comments in this thread should rightfully give pause to aspiring law students/current law students, I don't think biglaw associates, for example, should give up, particularly if you're just starting and want to hit the eject button.

i don't quite follow this comment. You mean you know many attorneys who went into consulting from years in biglaw?
How many years of practice did they have? Did they have experience before going into law?

[BernieTrump]

.

[PMan99]

This has been a good thread and very informative. But I do want to offer one caveat, which is perhaps self evident. Sheer grit and determination has overcome the type of obstacles presented by law degrees/stereotypes noted in this thread many times, and effective networking can overcome anything that has been written about ITT thus far. It is true that a biglaw pedigree (and HYS/similarly prestigious background) is not going to make the doors fly open, but with above average effort, it can be done. If anyone is inclined, I encourage you to read about the networking tactics and tenacity of "non-target" students who get into top banking/consulting/etc. jobs. It is phenomenal. However, the law path has the "benefit" of being very formulaic. UG --> top LSAT/GPA --> top law school --> top grades --> top firm. All very high probability even with little/no networking, so those skills aren't developed. In other industries, it's far less straight forward and requires much more persistence. So, while I think the comments in this thread should rightfully give pause to aspiring law students/current law students, I don't think biglaw associates, for example, should give up, particularly if you're just starting and want to hit the eject button.

i don't quite follow this comment. You mean you know many attorneys who went into consulting from years in biglaw?
How many years of practice did they have? Did they have experience before going into law?

I'm not going to say it never happens because I've stumbled across linkedin profiles here and there where people went from biglaw to MBB but there are more SCOTUS clerks each year than people who successfully make that jump.

[Rahviveh]

This has been a good thread and very informative. But I do want to offer one caveat, which is perhaps self evident. Sheer grit and determination has overcome the type of obstacles presented by law degrees/stereotypes noted in this thread many times, and effective networking can overcome anything that has been written about ITT thus far. It is true that a biglaw pedigree (and HYS/similarly prestigious background) is not going to make the doors fly open, but with above average effort, it can be done. If anyone is inclined, I encourage you to read about the networking tactics and tenacity of "non-target" students who get into top banking/consulting/etc. jobs. It is phenomenal. However, the law path has the "benefit" of being very formulaic. UG --> top LSAT/GPA --> top law school --> top grades --> top firm. All very high probability even with little/no networking, so those skills aren't developed. In other industries, it's far less straight forward and requires much more persistence. So, while I think the comments in this thread should rightfully give pause to aspiring law students/current law students, I don't think biglaw associates, for example, should give up, particularly if you're just starting and want to hit the eject button.

i don't quite follow this comment. You mean you know many attorneys who went into consulting from years in biglaw?
How many years of practice did they have? Did they have experience before going into law?

MBB isn't a networking thing. You go through a case study interview process that is uber selective and no BS "why did you go to law school" type questions. I guess you could do big 4 consulting, but lol @ working at the big 4 being an upgrade

[goodoldmacintosh]

Yes, the jump to consulting can happen from biglaw without extraordinary circumstances (a couple of years or less is most common in what I have seen, but self selection probably plays a significant role in that). And no, you don't need prior experience to land an interview at a consulting firm (e.g. no MBB as an analyst, etc., you can be straight through).

It likely isn't helpful to look at it in terms of volume. To the extent you have some impressive names on your resume (previous WE, top UG, top LS, top firm, high standardized test scores or some combination), and network a bit, you are significantly more likely than not to get an interview. From the interview stage forward, background is generally equalized among applicants and candidates are compared based on performance in the case interviews. Strong case interview performance has a very high correlation with preparation (usually with the higher number of cases practiced with experienced partners, the better).

[BruceWayne]

The other thing is, like the OP said, is that it's just more broadly applicable to non law firm employers. Also,from what I can see of more senior attorneys, once you hit a certain level of experience/skill in litigation, there is going to be an employer that is going to value your skill set.

Not saying you're wrong, but the notion that skills gained in biglaw litigation is just "more broadly applicable to non law firm employers" goes against literally everything I've heard about biglaw from current biglaw associates both IRL and TLS.

There was a good rayiner thread from a few years ago talking about his experience as a lit associate in biglaw. Basically, lit is better QOL day to day but you have very limited career options. You either do more lit at a firm or go govt, which is competitive as fuck.

Again, not saying you're wrong.

I could understand why someone would say that, but to me (kind of akin to what OP was describing) the thing is that most of the jobs where corp is going to be more applicable are things like finance and consulting. The thing is, those jobs are SOOO competitive, and you have to overcome the lack of quant skills stereotype. Yeah lit "only" prepares you for government, in house, and small/midlaw, but government is very very broad. A lot of TLSers only think of government as the SEC and DOJ. But essentially every federal office employs attorneys and then you have local government which is basically infinite when you look at the number of states, counties, and municipalities that exist across the country. There are only so many Ibanks and consulting firms looking for a lawyer at any given time (and frankly most of the time they aren't looking for lawyers at all. And we haven't even gotten to discussing small/midlaw opportunities that actually become realistic after a few years of litigation experience (even if they aren't always great gigs). Also companies do hire litigators for in house positions when you have worked in areas like employment law.

Not sure why you limit corp exit options to just consulting/finance and then include in-house as an option for lit. Biglaw is 2/3 lit and 1/3 corp associates, but the in-house jobs at companies are 2/3 corp associates and 1/3 lit. Not exact but a good rule of thumb I got from both rayiner and thesealocust.

Are you writing from personal experience?

My post was all over the place because I'm at work. But I wasn't limiting corp to finance/consulting. I was trying to say that finance and consulting are the jobs that are only available to corporate (generally) and comparing those to the options that are generally available to former litigators. Basically the jobs where corporate gives you a leg up over lit are a bit illusory for most people because even if you are a former corporate attorney, those jobs are extremely difficult to get (like OP was saying in his original post).

And yes I am to your last question but I am not nearly as far removed from school as the OP.